Where do our freedoms come from?

[MikeC2W]

I'm just curious what you all think....

Please explain other.

[Slim]

I went with natures law. I don't believe in god in a Christian way, but I do believe in natures law.

Either that or guns. Lots of guns, and a willingness to use them.

[SOTB]

Other.

As in you and I. WE give us our freedoms -- and WE defend them....

[Looon]

Other.

As in you and I. WE give us our freedoms -- and WE defend them....
This

[Baildog]

I could have chosen "The Constitution," I guess, but I chose "Other."
They come from the foresight of our forefathers in laying down the Constitution, but they only exist becuase of their and our willingness to preserve and defend them. Simple as that. There are no guarantees in life. That which you do not demand and cannot defend, you will not have. At the end of the day, as much as the Constitution embodies humanity's best effort to-date on what should be the relationship between a people and their govenrment, it is only a peice of paper, and we ourselves are the ones who determine whether it has meaning and force.

That's my feeling.

[Massgrunt]

Other.

As in you and I. WE give us our freedoms -- and WE defend them....

Exactly. Anyone who believes God or Santa Claus or whoever gives us any rights, let me know the next time he comes down and enforces them. I will be the first to admit I was wrong and buy the beer.

[Ole crusty bastard]

I feel that you are as free as you want to be. A lot of us have already overcame many obstacles in life. Find a path and keep on truckin.

[Amarillo]

The answer, for me, lies pretty close to Nature's Law. But that's a benighted way to describe it. So I said Other. Our Liberties do come from US, so to speak, but not because of anything we do. Our Liberties (read: choices) come to us just because we exist. Even if no other laws of Nature existed, our liberties would remain because of our existence. (And through our knowledge of our existence, but that's another can of worms.)

[Longrifle]

We had a war to prove we had freedom, and that war was over before we had a Constitution. Therefore, freedom does not come from the Constitution.

Damn sure isn't the government. "We the People" preceded it.

The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, and clearly indicates those Rights pre-exist the Constitution itself and limits government infringement on those Rights.

Maybe the question more important than the origin of freedom is how easy it is to lose.

How to boil a frog comes to mind, and I feel steam rising.

[MikeC2W]

Interesting.

[Titleist]

We had a war to prove we had freedom, and that war was over before we had a Constitution. Therefore, freedom does not come from the Constitution.

Damn sure isn't the government. "We the People" preceded it.

The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, and clearly indicates those Rights pre-exist the Constitution itself and limits government infringement on those Rights.

Maybe the question more important than the origin of freedom is how easy it is to lose.

How to boil a frog comes to mind, and I feel steam rising.

Sauna like... :cool:

IMO I think the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with "natural law" in mind.

"The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of Nature for his rule." John Locke


"Upon this law, depend the natural rights of mankind, the supreme being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beautifying that existence. He endowed him with rational faculties, by the help of which, to discern and pursue such things, as were consistent with his duty and interest, and invested him with an inviolable right to personal liberty and personal safety.

"Hence, in a state of nature, no man has any moral power to deprive another of his life, limbs, property, or liberty; nor the least authority to command, or exact obedience from him....

"Hence also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man or set of men have, to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people, in their own despite, or to grasp at more extensive power than they are willing to entrust, is to violate that law of nature, which gives every man the right to his personal liberty; and can, therefore, confer no obligation to obedience."

Alexander Hamilton

[skyhawk691]

I choose OTHER..
As our Freedom is based
on the back of our Warriors
(Past, Present, and Future)
who guard our backs daily.

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h39/skyhawk691/godBlessAmericaPrayer-2.jpg

[Odin's Underling]

Lexington, Gettysburg, Omaha Beach, Iwo Jima. Sometimes the people we love to hate in DC actually get it right from time to time but it doesn't seem like it has happened lately. Most of our freedoms come from what our founding fathers gave us and thank God we have them and the those that defend them, the ones in uniform. Not the suits or skirts that the politicians put on when they decide to go to work. I'm tired but not too tired to ever stop using my right to speak or vote.

[Titleist]

I choose OTHER..
As our Freedom is based
on the back of our Warriors
(Past, Present, and Future)
who guard our backs daily.

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h39/skyhawk691/godBlessAmericaPrayer-2.jpg

With all due respect sir, I was under the impression that our Military, legislators, President et al pledge their devotion to protect and uphold the Constitution. The Bill of Rights spelled out those rights they felt were natural and absolutely, never, without a doubt could be infringed upon. :confused:

[JD Bobcat]

l think we're born with the right to survive .. by any means necessary .. and take the Freedom we want by imposing our will on everything in our environment .. so Nature, l guess ..

.. either individually or in packs .. or by country .. or even planetary if it came to that ..

Guess it depends on the threat .... survival of the fittest .. !

[MeatLasagna]

Our freedoms existed long before anyone took the time to make a list of which ones we want... just like time existed long before anyone invented a watch. "Nature's Law/God" defines the possibility for freedoms, and we define which ones we want. Even if we are bound and shackled, our freedoms still exist just waiting to be taken back...

[random]

I voted Nature's Law/God.

Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the government all exist to protect our rights. I don't think "we" define our rights because I don't think "we" have the right to restrict rights. "We" in the USSR thought rights were something very different than what "we" in the US generally believe. I think it's a higher law than ours that gives us our rights.

[JDAM]

Our freedoms existed long before anyone took the time to make a list of which ones we want... just like time existed long before anyone invented a watch. "Nature's Law/God" defines the possibility for freedoms, and we define which ones we want. Even if we are bound and shackled, our freedoms still exist just waiting to be taken back...

Very well said, I agree completely.

[Titleist]

Here is an example of where some in our country have believed our rights come from. The arrogance in the video is breathtaking. This comes from a Glen Beck clip so those of you disposed to ignoring him might not want to entertain the content.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr6ry465gdc

[UGAfan]

I would say natural law, not because of God, but more out of Hobbe's views on man.

Subjugation is not natural to anyone, so in a state of equality there are certain things that people ought to have an expectation of. A good rule of thumb is "your right to swing your fist ends at my face."

[heavyguns1/1]

Nature's Law/God.
Every creature is predisposed to want to be free and not fucked with.

[UGAfan]

Here is an example of where some in our country have believed our rights come from. The arrogance in the video is breathtaking. This comes from a Glen Beck clip so those of you disposed to ignoring him might not want to entertain the content.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr6ry465gdc

They're all arrogant fucks and I think that they should be ran out of DC with torches and pitchforks, but I think his comments might have been taken out of context.

If the Senator believes that our "rights" were given to us by the government, then fuck him and the horse he rode in on. We've always had these rights, it's only been in the last five hundred or so years that political philosophy has caught on.

But maybe I'm being a bit of an optimist when hoping that what he was actually saying was "Healthcare has always been a right, and now we as a government are finally recognizing that through passing this massive legislation that will ultimately push our country farther into China's back pocket." :rolleyes:

[Titleist]

They're all arrogant fucks and I think that they should be ran out of DC with torches and pitchforks, but I think his comments might have been taken out of context.

If the Senator believes that our "rights" were given to us by the government, then fuck him and the horse he rode in on. We've always had these rights, it's only been in the last five hundred or so years that political philosophy has caught on.

But maybe I'm being a bit of an optimist when hoping that what he was actually saying was "Healthcare has always been a right, and now we as a government are finally recognizing that through passing this massive legislation that will ultimately push our country farther into China's back pocket." :rolleyes:

I find it obscene quite frankly to hear any other human tell me they are going to grant me a right. Pardon me folks but...WTF? I'll say it again...WTF?

[okami1]

A right is inalienable. What the government "allows" you to do is a "permission" not a right.

I voted other for the same reason as SOTB.

[Titleist]

A right is inalienable. What the government "allows" you to do is a "permission" not a right.

I voted other for the same reason as SOTB.

Negative Sir...The government doesn't "grant you "permission" to do anything. It is to simply not allow you to violate someone else's natural rights. Tough crowd here. :rolleyes:

[Soot]

Other.

Mutual consent/social contract.

Our rights are what we say/agree they are they are at the point of a gun.

Our gun or the gun others are willing to raise on our behalf.

We fuck around with semantics and negotiation over tyhe gray area, but the fundamental stuff, the Constitutional stuff, is the result of general compromise.

[okami1]

Negative Sir...The government doesn't "grant you "permission" to do anything. It is to simply not allow you to violate someone else's natural rights. Tough crowd here. :rolleyes:

I think you misunderstood me. I was agreeing with you and your WTF sentiment about the government "granting" anybody rights.

[skyhawk691]

Negative Sir...The government doesn't "grant you "permission" to do anything. It is to simply not allow you to violate someone else's natural rights. Tough crowd here. :rolleyes:

Coming from a Non-Veteran like yourself, you should be a little
more respectful in your answers here. The Veteran paid with
his Blood and Hard Sacrifice for the last 234 years.
Not the Politician, not the President,
The Veteran's of all Conflicts !!

[UGAfan]

I find it obscene quite frankly to hear any other human tell me they are going to grant me a right. Pardon me folks but...WTF? I'll say it again...WTF?

I agree with you, and I think their convoluted logic comes from serving in Congress for an obscene amount of time and they eventually come to think that THEY are the office and not simply placeholders.

I'm hoping for the sake of our country that he wasn't implying that the government was "granting" us the right but instead recognizing it for once. I think he's fucking wrong either way, but I'd rather have a misguided altruist than a power hungry megalomaniac who believes the government's role to be paternalistic and to "grant" us rights.

Some of you saltier gentlemen should definately run for office. You'd have my vote.

[Titleist]

Coming from a Non-Veteran like yourself, you should be a little
more respectful in your answers here. The Veteran paid with
his Blood and Hard Sacrifice for the last 234 years.
Not the Politician, not the President,
The Veteran's of all Conflicts !!

If I offended you Sir, or anybody else, please accept my apologies. I was trying to relate my reverence for those soldiers that fought and died during our war of Independence which enabled the Constitution. Every Soldier that enters the service of this Nation swears to protect, defend and uphold the Constitution that I hold dear. I Sir, admire and respect you and everybody else that has ever worn a uniform of this country.

[Baildog]

OK, to delve into semantics, the original question asked where our FREEDOMS come from. Is that the same thing as RIGHTS?

FREEDOM. the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

RIGHT. the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled

Almost two sides of the same coin, but not quite exactly. There is no implication of justice or entitlement in freedom.

And I assume by the way the choices are laid out that we are talking about those powers or priveleges to which AMERICANS are justly entitled? Vice those to which all humans would be justly entitled. Or, is there a distinction? Because the application of both freedoms and rights certainly varies aorund the world. Is the real question meant to be "Are rights inalienable (incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred); and if so, why?"

[okami1]

I agree with you, and I think their convoluted logic comes from serving in Congress for an obscene amount of time and they eventually come to think that THEY are the office and not simply placeholders.

I'm hoping for the sake of our country that he wasn't implying that the government was "granting" us the right but instead recognizing it for once. I think he's fucking wrong either way, but I'd rather have a misguided altruist than a power hungry megalomaniac who believes the government's role to be paternalistic and to "grant" us rights.

Well said.



Some of you saltier gentlemen should definately run for office. You'd have my vote.

x a million. Some of you salty gals too.

[smoked]

Other... or me.

I define my freedom - so long as it's exercise doesn't on infringe on another's - and ultimately it is up to me to preserve it.

I guess.

Shit, Mike, how about a poll on healthcare? My head hurts.:biggrin:

Edit: Replaced "rights" with "freedom"

[cb88]

Hmmm, where do we get them from or what guarnatees them?

Interesting.

We are born free.....and then we are taxed to death. :biggrin:

[MikeC2W]

OK, to delve into semantics, the original question asked where our FREEDOMS come from. Is that the same thing as RIGHTS?





Almost two sides of the same coin, but not quite exactly. There is no implication of justice or entitlement in freedom.

And I assume by the way the choices are laid out that we are talking about those powers or priveleges to which AMERICANS are justly entitled? Vice those to which all humans would be justly entitled. Or, is there a distinction? Because the application of both freedoms and rights certainly varies aorund the world. Is the real question meant to be "Are rights inalienable (incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred); and if so, why?"


That's a different question all together, if I were going to adjust my question I might in this fashion: Where do inalienable rights come from?

Perhaps I should have defined what I was thinking when I typed 'freedoms', I didn't mean to be misleading, but I was thinking of those inalienable rights. By the definition alone - inalienable - they are incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.

[MikeC2W]

Other... or me.

I define my rights - so long as they don't on infringe on another's - and ultimately it is up to me to preserve them.

I guess.

Shit, Mike, how about a poll on healthcare? My head hurts.:biggrin:


:biggrin: This is a poll on health care. ;)

[okami1]

Where do inalienable rights come from?



Maybe we come from them. That's what makes them inalienable. Original rights. At least that's how it could be viewed from a natural law standpoint.

[Titleist]

:biggrin: This is a poll on health care. ;)

X1000...is it a right? Or is this administration simply creating another budget busting entitlement program we will never be able to deconstruct. $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years? Paid for by how? Mandatory participation? LOL. You can put me on the list of non-participants now if you like. :tongue:

[Baildog]

Well, I guess my bias was showing, but to me, I'm afraid, there are no truly inalienable rights. Life, Liberty, you may be justly entitled to them, but I can force you to surrender both (I think I just mixed definitions there, didn't I?).

But it brings me back to what SOTB said (far more succinctly than I) ...

WE give us our freedoms -- and WE defend them.... <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[smoked]

:biggrin: This is a poll on health care. ;)

Ha! Then I suspect you like that there's not a single vote in this poll for "Government." As do I...

[ET1/ss nuke]

The document that defined our freedoms (before our ancestors ever entertained the idea of a federal government, much less a Constitution) said that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

One of the things that makes our country unique is the notion that people are born already having rights that were not granted to them by any man or government. The whole concept of "inalienable" is that a right can't be taken away by anyone or anything who didn't grant that right in the first place.

Those who claim to be the origin of their own rights need to think that through. At what age did you grant yourself those rights? Before you were old enough to understand your rights, did you have any? If your parents granted them to you, do orphans have any rights? Do people in a coma have rights if they lack the ability to grant and defend them? If you can grant yourself any rights you see fit, can you grant yourself the right to infringe on other people's rights? Down that road lies anarchy.

I agree with Jefferson by default. If we are not born already having rights, then there is no other logical way to have them that could be considered inalienable. Of course, that opens up the question of whether an unborn baby has rights.

[Titleist]

Well, I guess my bias was showing, but to me, I'm afraid, there are no truly inalienable rights. Life, Liberty, you may be justly entitled to them, but I can force you to surrender both (I think I just mixed definitions there, didn't I?).

But it brings me back to what SOTB said (far more succinctly than I) ...

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Very tough crowd. "We" don't give us our freedoms." All we do is protect our freedoms from foriegn and domestic violaters of our natural liberty to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our Military keeps us safe from the foriegn violaters and our LEO's keep us safe from the domestic. Sometimes they are intertwined. Nonetheless, their loyalty is to the Constitution of these United States. IMHO

[random]

If we are not born already having rights, then there is no other logical way to have them that could be considered inalienable. Of course, that opens up the question of whether an unborn baby has rights.

Two sides of that argument. Yes, they do have rights. Or no, they don't, because they haven't yet been born. With being born being the requirement to attain your rights as an individual.

[Soot]

The document that defined our freedoms (before our ancestors ever entertained the idea of a federal government, much less a Constitution) said that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

One of the things that makes our country unique is the notion that people are born already having rights that were not granted to them by any man or government. The whole concept of "inalienable" is that a right can't be taken away by anyone or anything who didn't grant that right in the first place.

Those who claim to be the origin of their own rights need to think that through. At what age did you grant yourself those rights? Before you were old enough to understand your rights, did you have any? If your parents granted them to you, do orphans have any rights? Do people in a coma have rights if they lack the ability to grant and defend them? If you can grant yourself any rights you see fit, can you grant yourself the right to infringe on other people's rights? Down that road lies anarchy.

I agree with Jefferson by default. If we are not born already having rights, then there is no other logical way to have them that could be considered inalienable. Of course, that opens up the question of whether an unborn baby has rights.

My issue with them, Jefferson included (great/singular/prophetic though he might have been not withstanding), is that they said 'a' out of one side of their mouth, while doing 'b'.

Inalienable rights.

Cheers.

Plantation owner who owes his fortune to chattle slavery. Boo. Hiss.

Illigitimate slave child on top of it. Double wammy.

Outstanding mind.

Makes Clinton look like a toddler with a pre-school crush.

Again, I stipulate that 'rights' are what we say they are.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Regardless of WHAT philosophy has been put forward to assert a particular right it has really only stood on the weight of the popularity of the policy (at least its popularity in the Congress/Parliment/assembly/whatever).

No disrespect intended.

[Longrifle]

"For as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself." ~The Declaration of Arbroath 1320.

This was just 105 years after some fed-up barons forced King John to recognize his limitations by signing the Magna Carta. That document is a cornerstone for the freedoms we enjoy today.

The History of Freedom should be a semester-length course at some point in high school, IMO. It's full of heroes and villains . . .

[Titleist]

"For as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself." ~The Declaration of Arbroath 1320.

This was just 105 years after some fed-up barons forced King John to recognize his limitations by signing the Magna Carta. That document is a cornerstone for the freedoms we enjoy today.

The History of Freedom should be a semester-length course at some point in high school, IMO. It's full of heroes and villains . . .

The Magna Carta was my first intoduction to formal government while a 6th grader at Ramstein AFB. Much of that document lives today in the Bill of Rights.

[smoked]

The whole concept of "inalienable" is that a right can't be taken away by anyone or anything who didn't grant that right in the first place.
Tell that to political prisoners, slaves or subjects of governments around the world.

At what age did you grant yourself those rights?
I was born free, just as you.

Before you were old enough to understand your rights, did you have any?
Yes.

If your parents granted them to you, do orphans have any rights?
My parents didn't, but yes, orphans do have rights.


Do people in a coma have rights if they lack the ability to grant and defend them?

Yes, they do. They have the right to be kept alive if they had insurance, or if others are willing to foot the bill it is their right to do so. Hopefully a living will is in place.


If you can grant yourself any rights you see fit, can you grant yourself the right to infringe on other people's rights? Down that road lies anarchy.

That was addressed by:
...so long as they don't on infringe on another's...


...the question of whether an unborn baby has rights.

What random said.

[JD Bobcat]

Ditto on the Magna Carta, Titleist .. 6th grade Rhein Main, AFB here ..

[Greenhat]

Well, I guess my bias was showing, but to me, I'm afraid, there are no truly inalienable rights. Life, Liberty, you may be justly entitled to them, but I can force you to surrender both (I think I just mixed definitions there, didn't I?).

But it brings me back to what SOTB said (far more succinctly than I) ...

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

How about the right to free thought? To free speech?

You can claim that you can force me to surrender my rights, but I don't believe you can. You can take my life... but not my liberty, or my right to believe as I wish, or my right to free thought or free speech, or to property. You can only take my life... unless I allow you to take those rights from me, they cannot be taken.

To quote a bumpersticker from a few years back:

"You can have my gun when you pry my cold, dead fingers from around it"

Btw, as no one should be surprised by, I voted for God/natural rights.

[Baildog]

I suppose you are correct in the I cannot take away your just entitlement to liberty, but (assuming I have more power than you) I certainly can take away our actual liberty. The same with your life, and freedom of speech. Some one or some group can through sheer power take all those away from you. Removing your freedom of thought and belief requires a little more than brute strength, and requires some pre-planning, but it can be done.

So, if you are entitled to liberty, but you never have any (as is true of so many in the world and in history), what actual good is that right, until or unless you or someone else in your stead demands and defends it?

I believe that Charlton Heston's quote actually supports my point. If you must defend it, even unto the death, for it to be true, then is it really inalienable? Or is it not something that you yourself create by your willingness to demand and defend it?

As was mentioned earlier, rights are the result of the social contract that we in general enter into, and collectively respect and maintain.

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe in and respect all those things which we tend to refer to as "rights" as things which all human are (until they individually prove otherwise) deserving of. But I cannot agree that those things have an existence of their own to where they cannot be taken away.

[Greenhat]

I suppose you are correct in the I cannot take away your just entitlement to liberty, but (assuming I have more power than you) I certainly can take away our actual liberty. The same with your life, and freedom of speech. Some one or some group can through sheer power take all those away from you. Removing your freedom of thought and belief requires a little more than brute strength, and requires some pre-planning, but it can be done.

Only my life. Without my consent, you cannot take any of the others from me. If you overpower me, you only do so because I make the choice not to die rather than be overpowered. Read The Gulag if you think you can remove freedom of thought and belief... of Five Years to Freedom.


I believe that Charlton Heston's quote actually supports my point. If you must defend it, even unto the death, for it to be true, then is it really inalienable? Or is it not something that you yourself create by your willingness to demand and defend it?

Obviously, it is inalienable. It cannot be taken away without our permission (and since in death, we give up all rights - retaining those rights until death clearly makes them inalienable).

[KidA]

They come from human beings figuring out over thousands of years what's right for themselves and for other human beings in a general sense. If we had evolved differently our "rights" would be different.

[Baildog]

Sir, I always appreciate your thoughtful comments. But I think we may be at a semantic impasse. With all due respect, who said anything about consent or permission? Inalienable means "incapable of being surrendered or transferred." Not can only be surrendered by acquiescence. I would argue that humans are most certainly capable of surrendering those "privileges to which they are justly entitled." Those that some would call sheep (crossthread points?) do so often enough. How often throughout history have people been deprived of life, liberty, freedom of speech? More often than not, I would say. If you can be deprived of it, it is not inalienable. Life, liberty, speech...those freedoms are not inherent in the world, but are the product of constant struggle and eternal vigilance. Something worth having, worth preserving, worth fighting for. Worth dying for. But not in and of themselves incapable of being surrendered. Those freedoms don't even exist until and unless they are exercised.

Might makes right in the world. Humans have developed a social structure that tempers might with a social contract that respects that observing certain values is a public good. But rights without might are merely a philosophical and ephemeral concept. They can be unjustly abrogated no matter how justly entitled to them you may feel. And if they may taken by force, or by guile, or because you simply surrendered them, then they are not inalienable, and not inherent.

[Massgrunt]

Rights are an idea, an abstraction like. They don't "exist" in any solid form. They exist only in our minds and our collective will to maintain them for ourselves and ensure them for others. When we lack that vigilance, those rights will quickly go away.

[Greenhat]

Sir, I always appreciate your thoughtful comments. But I think we may be at a semantic impasse. With all due respect, who said anything about consent or permission? Inalienable means "incapable of being surrendered or transferred." Not can only be surrendered by acquiescence. I would argue that humans are most certainly capable of surrendering those "privileges to which they are justly entitled." Those that some would call sheep (crossthread points?) do so often enough. How often throughout history have people been deprived of life, liberty, freedom of speech? More often than not, I would say. If you can be deprived of it, it is not inalienable. Life, liberty, speech...those freedoms are not inherent in the world, but are the product of constant struggle and eternal vigilance. Something worth having, worth preserving, worth fighting for. Worth dying for. But not in and of themselves incapable of being surrendered. Those freedoms don't even exist until and unless they are exercised.

Might makes right in the world. Humans have developed a social structure that tempers might with a social contract that respects that observing certain values is a public good. But rights without might are merely a philosophical and ephemeral concept. They can be unjustly abrogated no matter how justly entitled to them you may feel. And if they may taken by force, or by guile, or because you simply surrendered them, then they are not inalienable, and not inherent.

You have chosen one definition. I was easily able to find another that said "unable to be transferred". As a matter of fact, that is the common and traditional use of inalienable, not "unable to be surrendered" - unless the idea of surrendering is like that of surrendering your sword - transferring from one to another.

"not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated" dictionary.reference.com

"That cannot be transferred to another or others" the free dictionary.com

"incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another" - Princeton

"not able to be transferred to another; not alienable " - Collins

As a matter of fact, only Websters seems to include the "incapable of being surrendered" and I believe you have misunderstood the use of surrendered in the context.

So, by definition, rights are in fact inalienable.

Might be worth reading this:

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0100.htm

[MikeC2W]

I had no idea that we would get such a differing of opinion, I'm amazed and a little shocked.

I think some of the line is simply drawn (and I'm talking poll results - no single post here) along atheist, non-atheist lines.

Believe what you will, but know this: America is founded on the ideas of natural law. If you believe in our founding documents then you believe in the philosophy that your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable and that they come from no man or no government, but from natural law or God - whichever suits you.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Anything else would simply be - tyranny. No man, no king, no fucking anything can take away my natural rights - period.

Apparently it's not so self-evident these days. They've been trying to fool us into believing otherwise for a long long time.

[GPC]

Other

[Princeps Belli]

This is a good pole. I put other, and I hesitated, because I was too confused. I think that all of the categories come together.

One-We as individuals have to believe in principles which are friendly to freedom.
Two-These principles have to come from something more important than the
government, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights
Three- There had to be a Constitution to establish the government. The Bill of Rights
is simply an addition.
Four- The government has to abide by the principles which articulate it, and it can't
get into the nasty habit of trading Liberty for conveniences. A government of
the people, by the people, and for the people can be dangerous. History is ripe
with populist governments turning into Tyrannies.

I think that Natural Law/God is most important. Secondly, the individual's knowledge, care, and respect of that. I tend to think that we have a hard time understanding the gap between good order and its effective practice. Therefore, a Constitution makes a nice instrument, and the government, adhering to that, makes a good government, albeit imperfect, but still good enough.

I do, however, believe that I wouldn't want to be the last man standing, trying to talk about justice, right, and good, to men that resemble brutes. They'd probably slice open my neck on T.V. Therefore, I have to put government high on my list of things that I thank God for in my heart.

[Massgrunt]

I think some of the line is simply drawn (and I'm talking poll results - no single post here) along atheist, non-atheist lines.
It looks like you're right, and times like that are when I start coming off like a condescending prick towards religious people. I mean seriously, is there no burden of proof? Are we to assume that all the oppressed people in the world (we'll talk about pediatric cancer patients another time) are not worthy in the eyes of God? Or are they to be rewarded for their suffering in the afterlife while their oppressors are cast into the lake of fire?

[Polypro]

I chose "Other" because I believe they come from a combination of what a truly free person "has", and the Bill of Rights (which protects). I also am one of those "half full" people when it comes to deity's. I believe there is one, and it said "here you go...earth...try not to screw it up...see ya", but that's about it. WFDTCMH? (What Freedoms Did The Cave Man Have)? Before all the BS of civilization, a decent caveman probably didn't want anybody messing with his mate, offspring, possessions, cave, hunting grounds/land, travel, SPEARS, CLUBS & ROCKS ( ;) ), fire or himself.

P

[MikeC2W]

It looks like you're right, and times like that are when I start coming off like a condescending prick towards religious people. I mean seriously, is there no burden of proof? Are we to assume that all the oppressed people in the world (we'll talk about pediatric cancer patients another time) are not worthy in the eyes of God? Or are they to be rewarded for their suffering in the afterlife while their oppressors are cast into the lake of fire?

You're missing the point, and you're right, you do sound like a condescending prick when you use Santa Claus and God in the same sentence...but you're not alone in that regard.

The natural state of man is freedom, period. I don't have to use the word God or even believe in 'God' or religion to understand this and see that it is inherently true.

It is not my natural state to be a slave. It is my nature to be free.

What's so hard to understand?

This nature, to be free comes from being part of nature, from being human, from being whatever. Some like to think it comes from a Creator or God, or I don't give a fuck - the point is IT DOES NOT come from the Bill of Rights, it does not come from Government or the Constitution.

It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice.

The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.

Thomas Paine

Government only exist, social contracts only exist to help protect our own sovereign rights of liberty.

...to deny this right would be absurd, just as it would be absurd to expect that carnivores might reject meat or fish stop swimming.

Hobbes

While we might set aside some of our freedoms and enter into a civil society, we could no longer separate these inalienable rights than a fish could stop swimming.

And while we enter these contracts to create a more civilized and orderly place to live, it is only through my consent that you actually 'govern'. If at some time and place this contract is broken, well just like the fish swims, I can always revert back to natural law, enter into a state of war, or become a slave.

Its not at all that god has forsaken me, it has nothing at all to do really with god unless you so inclined to believe in one.

The progressive would tell you that your liberty comes from your government... if it's not consent of the governed then what is it? Divine right of kings?

Now I'm rambling - the point is your freedom is part of your humanity and is given by no other man or government and likewise can not be taken.

[Slim]

Are we to assume that all the oppressed people in the world (we'll talk about pediatric cancer patients another time) are not worthy in the eyes of God? Or are they to be rewarded for their suffering in the afterlife while their oppressors are cast into the lake of fire?


They have the same inalianable rights as the rest of us. Its just that they have been told for generations that they don't have them. What is to stop them from standing up and demanding their rights? Sure they'll be dead before they finish speaking,but they will have died in defence of what was already theirs.

I'm not a christian. I don't believe in "god". It is however "self evident" that I have rights that came from somewhere other than "we" or "society" or any kind of social contract. Those are mechanisms that defend my rights (thanks for that), but that is not where they come from.

Greenhat has flat out nailed the principles here.

[smoked]

The natural state of man is freedom, period. I don't have to use the word God or even believe in 'God' or religion to understand this and see that it is inherently true.

It is not my natural state to be a slave. It is my nature to be free.



I agree with this.



I believe there is one, and it said "here you go...earth...try not to screw it up...see ya"

I also agree with this....


Mike, you started this shit! :biggrin: How'd you vote?

[MikeC2W]

HA

That's easy - easy as it is self-evident. Freedom comes from natures law, I could no longer lose my freedom than I could choose to stop breathing. I don't know how else to say it.

[grog18b]

Other.

Veterans (soldiers) give us our freedom.

Without our veterans (soldiers), we'd either still be under the Crown, or we'd be speaking a German/Japanese mix of language.

Without veterans/soldiers who were/are willing to pay the ultimate price, we would have no freedom.

Without the veteran/soldier who stood/stands guard against oppression, we would have no freedom.

It all comes down to veterans/soldiers.

[smoked]

HA

That's easy - easy as it is self-evident. Freedom comes from natures law, I could no longer lose my freedom than I could choose to stop breathing. I don't know how else to say it.

Ya, I missed the post where you stated as such... And, I was posting while you were editing your previous post where you explained further. My bad...

[MikeC2W]

Other.

Veterans (soldiers) give us our freedom.

Without our veterans (soldiers), we'd either still be under the Crown, or we'd be speaking a German/Japanese mix of language.

Without veterans/soldiers who were/are willing to pay the ultimate price, we would have no freedom.

Without the veteran/soldier who stood/stands guard against oppression, we would have no freedom.

It all comes down to veterans/soldiers.

I disagree completely. ;)

[KidA]

I disagree completely. ;)

Me too. Veterans/soldiers answer the call and protect our rights. Our rights do not come from them. Our rights are an idea we've formulated over millenia. Think about it - if we had evolved without an idea of a "Creator" would we have the right to practice our religion? We wouldn't have a religion so we wouldn't recognize that right - it would be as foreign a concept to us now as our "right" to fly about in the sky without regulation by spreading our wings if we had evolved with them.

If we had evolved peacefully would we have a "right" to keep and bear arms? We wouldn't have these things. Had (to borrow from biblical texts) human never tasted the fruit of knowledge and been made to suffer we'd still be eating vegetables and living peacefully with lions.

Currently people are evolving their ideas that everyone has a "right" to healthcare. Who is to say that in 200 years that it becomes such a common concept that to believe you do not have a right to healtcare by a government is as foreign to us now as our belief that we have a right to keep and bear arms?

[BOFH]

I clicked "constitution," but that's not true...my rights are mine by virtue of being a human being, whether "evolved," "created," or whatever else you want to believe. The constitution simply enumerates the rights which "can't," be taken from a person.

[MikeC2W]

Me too. Veterans/soldiers answer the call and protect our rights. Our rights do not come from them. Our rights are an idea we've formulated over millenia. Think about it - if we had evolved without an idea of a "Creator" would we have the right to practice our religion? We wouldn't have a religion so we wouldn't recognize that right - it would be as foreign a concept to us now as our "right" to fly about in the sky without regulation by spreading our wings if we had evolved with them.

If we had evolved peacefully would we have a "right" to keep and bear arms? We wouldn't have these things. Had (to borrow from biblical texts) human never tasted the fruit of knowledge and been made to suffer we'd still be eating vegetables and living peacefully with lions.

Currently people are evolving their ideas that everyone has a "right" to healthcare. Who is to say that in 200 years that it becomes such a common concept that to believe you do not have a right to healtcare by a government is as foreign to us now as our belief that we have a right to keep and bear arms?

You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - all intangible really. Provided that you do not infringe on others right to the same, as defined by the laws and contracts we've all entered into which we call the civil society.

Health care is not a right, it's a product. If you decide that you have some inherent right to my product, you're denying me my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You are enslaving me.

I can either say that's cool, and enter into this new contract or say fuck you.

At this point if they go forth without an up or down vote, I'm inclined to say fuck you.

[smoked]

Currently people are evolving their ideas that everyone has a "right" to healthcare. Who is to say that in 200 years that it becomes such a common concept that to believe you do not have a right to healtcare by a government is as foreign to us now as our belief that we have a right to keep and bear arms?

If sick people have a *right" to health care then providers also have the right to withhold care. And, I have a right to not pay for other peoples care.

[Massgrunt]

It is not my natural state to be a slave. It is my nature to be free.

What's so hard to understand?It is your nature to desire to be free. Left in a vacuum where you (or some proxy, or society at large) weren't willing to defend it, that freedom would exist only until someone desired to make you work in his fields, take your stuff, etc. Freedom is only a notion, it does not "come from" anywhere.

[TJ2JM1783]

The term Nature's Law reminds me of Pandora. While recognizing it is used extensively, I prefer the term natural law. IMO, the tenets of natural law are descriptive of what comes naturally to us (admittedly what is in our "nature"), freedom, honor, equality, conscience, ethics, morals. Human rights are but an explanation of that self-evident natural occurrence. Sometimes I feel the more we need to explain it, the further it gets from being natural - understood, accepted, recognized.

Where does that natural law come from? Just from "being"? Personally, I am not sure I would have grouped Natural Law and God under the same category unless, of course, the implication was that natural law comes from God.;)

You look around the world (notwithstanding the problems within the United States), and wonder where is the belief/practice of natural law most evident, least evident and why? It is against our being to be governed, but there is paradox in a nation that has been governed by the same instrument for over 200 years, and those that have revolving door governments. At times I shake my head at Latin America and describe 90% of their history as "salimos de guataMALA y caimos en guataPIOR". But, . . .

There was a time that natural law was viewed as an obligation. Since Locke (nod to GH) and, in our own history, Jefferson, it is viewed as a right of being.

"La libertad es el derecho que todo hombre tiene de ser honrado, pensar y hablar sin hipcresia."

Freedom is the right of whole man to be honest/honorable, think and speak without hypocrisy. I voted natural law/God.

[KidA]

Health care is not a right, it's a product.

Slaves are not people, they are property...

[uTTER]

Before there were Kings and governments, our ancestors were hunter/gatherers. If they were poor hunter/gatherers, they died. As long as they could hunt and gather, they could do what they wished (rights) until a bigger, stronger neighbor exerted force upon them to inhibit the exercise of the rights. Thus, man had the ability to do whatever man wished until man’s activities were interfered with through the use of force by other men. I understand that natural law is capable of multiple definitions and the ambiguity of the term makes this discussion a bit more complicated. We only have the ability to do what we want until someone else makes us stop.

‘Inalienable rights’, as used in the Declaration of Independence, was meant to justify a treasonous rebellion by the Colonies. The premise being that these rights are so inseparable from us as human beings, that when these rights are trampled, the affected person is justified, in fact obligated, to rise up in defense of those rights-- through use of force if necessary. The Declaration references our “creation” with these inalienable rights. Our tradition, it seems to me, is that we our born with these rights and that the “right” (not necessarily the ability) to exercise them is not to be infringed against by the Government.

Our forefathers, through the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights therein, attempted to define those rights in a document, and create a system of government, for the purpose of ensuring the oppressiveness of the crown would not be repeated in our future. The Government, without contradicting the Constitution, then makes further laws to regulate society.

The Government is supposed to conduct itself according to the Constitution. The people are supposed to elect the government. The electorate provides government with legitimacy. Both our military service members and government leaders take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, which in turns supports our country. Our military is commanded by the President of the United States, who is elected by the people.

If, at some point, government becomes oppressive and starts trampling on those certain inalienable rights, the people in theory are justified (and perhaps obligated) to rise up and depose the oppressive government. I say this in the theoretical context, not in the tin foil hat, conspiracy theory context.

I would submit that any time one has to prepare a list of anything, inevitably some things get left off. The Bill of Rights lists some rights but not others. It embodies the ideals at the time but is not the source of the fundamental right. It is the authority we use to defend those rights in a courtroom. However, the Constitution can be amended to take away the ability to exercise rights if the popularly elected government so chooses. It may be said that the Constitution actually is a restriction on the exercise of rights (just look at the arguments for and against the liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment).

I am far from being the most qualified guy to opine on this board, but that is my basis for stating that I believe the foundation for our rights is Natural Law. I damn sure don’t know how to define it. I would include the individual in Nature’s Law and not necessarily restrict it to just God. The rights flow from the individual regardless. They are inseparable from the individual from birth regardless of how the individual got here. When the individual is no longer willing to fight for those rights, the individual will lose the ability to exercise those rights. An individual can recapture the ability to exercise rights through the expenditure of blood—the freedoms are never permanently lost in that regard. I guess if Natural Law is restricted to the religious context only, then I would go with “Other”.

[Vincent]

Slaves are not people, they are property...

That's an interesting comment.

What is also interesting is that this thread is running parallel to a thread where half the posters are extolling the virtues of a flag that has become a symbol of the defiance by states against a federal government demanding they grant full rights to ALL humans...

Cross-thread points?

[Greenhat]

The constitution simply enumerates the rights which "can't," be taken from a person.

I've posted this many times before, and I am amazed each time that I have to post it.

The Constitution does not enumerate rights at all. It is the blueprint for our government and includes restrictions on the operation of the government to ensure that the federal government does not infringe on our rights.

Read the Bill of Rights, including the 9th and 10th Amendments. Think about why they are written in the way they are. Few people bother, or think about what they mean.

[Gpool]

I really don't care where people think my rights come from. We benefit from society while at the same time being pressured by it. As we all have a natural instinct to look out for our own self interest we recognize part of that self interest is supported by the society we live in. Thus the balancing act. For Instance robbing a store will preserve my resources but the cops will probably through me in jail so I would rather just by the stuff, or if I believe Johnny is going to try and kill me I will kill him first even though I will spend 10-20 in prison, I will kill Johnny because Prison is better than dead. Most western governments have figured out where this natural line is drawn and work not to cross it because that leads to individuals thinking, "I don't get as much bang from society as I give so I don't have a self interest in following those norms..." and this leads to problems like war/insurrection/ bad stuff.

[MikeC2W]

Others say it much more succinctly than I ever could, read for yourself:

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0100.htm

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson

"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." --Thomas Jefferson

Substitute whatever word you need to in order to support your religious or non-religious beliefs, personally I think the "Author of Nature" has a nice ring to it.

"The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings." --Thomas Jefferson

Freedom is more than a 'notion' it is a state.


"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" --Thomas Jefferson

For those insecure with the use of 'God' how about this:

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the mind of the people that these liberties are inalienable?


You can choose to believe what you like, that's your right, obviously, and you don't need me to tell you that, but if you believe in the founding documents of this country and what they were trying to do, then you believe that you have an inescapable innate right to liberty, regardless of your current state.

I won't even go into labor or property. :smile:

[smoked]

The Constitution does not enumerate rights at all. It is the blueprint for our government and includes restrictions on the operation of the government to ensure that the federal government does not infringe on our rights.

Read the Bill of Rights, including the 9th and 10th Amendments. Think about why they are written in the way they are. Few people bother, or think about what they mean.

Rights are specifically enumerated with The Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, being a collection of amendments, is now part of the Constitution. Therefore the Constitution enumerates rights. The 9th Amendment addresses rights NOT specifically enumerated... and therefore are reserved for the people.

That's my take anyway... how's it wrong?

[MikeC2W]

Slaves are not people, they are property...

What's your point?

You would revert to slavery to ensure universal health care?



Also lets be clear here, people like to say it was the states who denied slaves rights against the wishes of the federal government. That is not completely true. It was in fact the federal government (and the southern states) who denied slaves rights (Dredd Scott) against the wishes of the territories and the northern states. It was the federal government that started 'separate but equal'. Everyone likes to think of this all powerful central government as being a good thing, look at your history.

[Polypro]

While I believe the Military is a big part of our freedoms in an indirect way (and a more direct way in 1776 and the 1940's), I don't believe they are as big a part as some.

To get us going as a country...yes

To keep Germany & Japan off our shores...yes

To prevent any type of "Red Dawn"...yes

To keep somebody from installing chips in my computer to read everything?...no

To keep other Americans out of my house?...no

To keep a politician from taking my guns...no

To allow me to choose my doctor...no

You get the idea.

P

[Greenhat]

Rights are specifically enumerated with The Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, being a collection of amendments, is now part of the Constitution. Therefore the Constitution enumerates rights. The 9th Amendment addresses rights NOT specifically enumerated... and therefore are reserved for the people.

That's my take anyway... how's it wrong?

Read the amendments. The Bill of Rights does NOT enumerate rights. It enumerates restrictions on the government as it interferes with rights. Rights are mentioned in passing, not in order to be listed.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note the "Congress shall make no law"

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Note the "shall not be infringed".

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

What right does that enumerate? Sounds like specific restrictions on the government to me.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Note the "shall not be violated".

"No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Again, specific restrictions on the government.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

Again, specific instructions.

"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Again, specific instructions (or do you think the right of trial by jury is tied to a value of $20?).

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Specific instructions/restrictions.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Yes, there are other rights beyond those mentioned in passing in the Constitution... an intentional bow to the opponents of the Bill of Rights who were concerned that it would be seen as a listing of rights.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The part of this that people often miss is that the States have the power to prohibit the federal government from certain powers. The commonly noted point is that the federal government does not have the right to exercise power outside of the limitations of the US Constitution (a restriction that has been ignored since the Civil War or earlier).

[Vincent]

Everyone likes to think of this all powerful central government as being a good thing, look at your history.

Not sure, but if you thought that was what I was getting at with my post, that's not what I intended.

In truth, the Constitution served to put restrictions on a strong Federal government interfering on the natural rights of its citizens.

At the time of the Civil War and continuing up through the Civil Rights Era, the states of the Confederacy used the notion of a tyrannical federal government to preserve their right to interfere with the natural rights of some of its citizens.

I am not of the belief that a strong federal government is a good thing with regard to preserving rights. On the contrary, the federal government represents the largest potential inhibitor of those rights. However, in the case of the Confederate states attempting to preserve the prerogative to deny the NATURAL rights of a certain collection of humans, then it was a force for good.

And with regard to the value of soldiers and veterans in the support of preserving the natural rights of its citizens - they certainly did in this case by fighting and bringing to submission those who fought under the flag referenced in the other thread.

[MikeC2W]

Not sure, but if you thought that was what I was getting at with my post, that's not what I intended.

In truth, the Constitution served to put restrictions on a strong Federal government interfering on the natural rights of its citizens.

At the time of the Civil War and continuing up through the Civil Rights Era, the states of the Confederacy used the notion of a tyrannical federal government to preserve their right to interfere with the natural rights of some of its citizens.

I am not of the belief that a strong federal government is a good thing with regard to preserving rights. However, in the case of several traitorous states attempting to preserve the prerogative to deny the NATURAL rights of a certain collection of humans, then it was a force for good.

And with regard to the value of soldiers and veterans in the support of preserving the natural rights of its citizens - they certainly did in this case by killing and bringing to submission those who fought under the flag referenced in the other thread.


How was Dredd Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson a force for good?

That's the federal government pretty much assuring we were fucked for a 100 years +.

Edited to add, this is a different topic really. Strict adherence to the constitution vs. activist judges (or something like that)..... a later chapter... first we have to define where our rights come from! lol :smile:

I would only submit that while people like to point to slavery during the time of the founding fathers, I would submit that it was their belief, philosophy of natural law which was ultimately embodied in the Constitution and Federalism that led to their freedom.

[Polypro]

Come on Mike, that was sooooooooooo long ago...that could *never* happen now a days :rolleyes: <---sarcasm

P

[Dark Helmet]

Great thread.

[smoked]

Read the amendments. The Bill of Rights does NOT enumerate rights. It enumerates restrictions on the government as it interferes with rights. Rights are mentioned in passing, not in order to be listed.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note the "Congress shall make no law"

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Note the "shall not be infringed".

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

What right does that enumerate? Sounds like specific restrictions on the government to me.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Note the "shall not be violated".

"No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Again, specific restrictions on the government.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

Again, specific instructions.

"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Again, specific instructions (or do you think the right of trial by jury is tied to a value of $20?).

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Specific instructions/restrictions.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Yes, there are other rights beyond those mentioned in passing in the Constitution... an intentional bow to the opponents of the Bill of Rights who were concerned that it would be seen as a listing of rights.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The part of this that people often miss is that the States have the power to prohibit the federal government from certain powers. The commonly noted point is that the federal government does not have the right to exercise power outside of the limitations of the US Constitution (a restriction that has been ignored since the Civil War or earlier).

I see what you're saying, BUT, those are enumerated rights.

e·nu·mer·ate (www.dictionary.com)
1. to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list:
2. to ascertain the number of; count.

They are listed specifically because the Founders deemed those first eight amendments to be so important they felt they must be listed - or enumerated - even though they were considered redundant according to the Anti-Federalists.

For example, take the 2nd:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now, what shall not be infringed? The RIGHT of the People to bear Arms. Clearly, they considered that RIGHT to be so important that they listed it or enumerated it along with the other seven.

Now, if you were to say the Constitution and Bill of Rights doesn't GRANT rights, I'd agree.

Maybe those smarty pants could've called it the Bill of Restrictions, Restraints AND Rights...:biggrin:

[smoked]

Alright, who's the jackass that voted for the Government? :biggrin:

[smp52]

I voted "other" for many of the reasons stated in this thread. It's somewhere between natural law (I'm not an atheist, nor religious) and the choice man makes to be free for me.

I would submit that it was their belief, philosophy of natural law which was ultimately embodied in the Constitution and Federalism that led to their freedom.

I think that the way our constitution is written in straight forward manner has much to do what how much Americans continue to discuss/disect it two centuries later, which is a great thing IMO. In my limited experience, I haven't met a group as passionate as Americans are about their constitution.

Even if the founding fathers owned slaves or the constitution itself did not recongize slaves as people, or allow women to vote, the core guiding principles of the constitution allowed for future generations to fall back upon those principles and provide justice for the oppressed.

Now, the path taken to address some of the civil unjustices may have be unconstitutional in nature as well (such as President Lincoln's actions during the civil war). Makes for interesting history for sure. IMO, local, state, and the federal government at various times have been guilty of treading on freedoms. Through jockeying between these various bodies, it has been rectified at times. This is another reason why the federal system while not error proof, is known to rebalance itself as well. An imperfect 80% solution, but a practical one.

[TJ2JM1783]

What's your point?

You would revert to slavery to ensure universal health care?

Now that's an interesting analogy and question. It would take acknowledgement of the relationship though. :smile:

Also lets be clear here, people like to say it was the states who denied slaves rights against the wishes of the federal government. That is not completely true. It was in fact the federal government (and the southern states) who denied slaves rights (Dredd Scott) against the wishes of the territories and the northern states. It was the federal government that started 'separate but equal'. Everyone likes to think of this all powerful central government as being a good thing, look at your history.

And perhaps the convolution of the ideology of state with the physical state.

[MikeC2W]

That the Founders had slaves does nothing to diminish the idea of Natural Law or inalienable rights, and while I hear about this often, I'm never to sure as to what it means or how I'm supposed to react. If anything it proves natural law.

"The FOUNDERS were SLAVE owners!"

Ah.... yes they were....


(KidA, this is not in reference to your post in this thread)



Here's another question for the team: Are we currently advancing towards more freedom or less? and Why?

[RGR.Montcalm]

I voted "other" -

The freedom I have is that which I defended, will defend, and teach my offspring (and anyone interested) to defend.

Yes, i was 'AUGMENTED' by the USG by giving me training, free ammo and weapons to learn to do it at the graduate level but I don't need the Gubment to 'defend' me- sort of like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop...

[KidA]

What's your point?.

My point was that slaves being property and not people was a prevailing belief at one point - some would have argued it was their right.

Beliefs change.

[MikeC2W]

My point was that slaves being property and not people was a prevailing belief at one point - some would have argued it was their right.

Beliefs change.


And they would have been in the minority and in the wrong.

Is there some type of equivalency that you are alluding to? Between ownership of a human being and free health care for all? That changing someone's attitude about slavery is akin to changing someone's attitude about health care?

Or are you simply saying things change?

[KidA]

Between ownership of a human being and free health care for all? That changing someone's attitude about slavery is akin to changing someone's attitude about health care?

Or are you simply saying things change?

No, no comparison between the two beliefs at all, other than the fact that one was a belief (and it goes back much further than our country, but to all countries where slaves were viewed as property to be bought and sold - heck in China up until this century selling a child into slavery when you were impoverished was just a thing people did with no second thoughts -- and even in other countries today people view others as beings to be bought and sold), that we are slowly eradicating from our thought process....and another is a belief that in a couple hundred years could very well be something people say "Man, I can't understand how those cretins in 2010 didn't understand Healthcare is a universal right" and then go on to Constitutionally explain and defend it.

Not saying that it ever would be, but there are people who believe it should be with their hearts and souls. I, personally, do not hold the belief that healtcare is a universal right, anymore than I believe that you can buy and sell people as property (shoot them, yes, when they piss you off, or when they're fat, but I digress...).

[uTTER]

Natural Law, perhaps for some, is embodied in the phrase “life, liberty and happiness” contained within the Declaration of Independence. If “Pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness” is the basis for the right to health care at issue today, the argument is misguided. The Declaration is not the Constitution. Further, the Constitution only states, in part, that one cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. It refers to a taking of life by the government—not a failure to provide life. I would not equate a failure to provide free third party life saving intervention with a taking in the context of a constitutional deprivation. To the contrary, government rationed health care is a deprivation of my right to contract with the health care provider of my choosing, for the services I choose, under the conditions in which I choose to receive them. There is no common law right to life or health care. There is a common law right to property and contract which the Constitution protects. To the extent that the current health care system inhibits the ability of the individual to choose and contract for services/service providers, then perhaps there is room for legislative improvement. To the extent that some argue for universal, cost free health coverage for the general population, not only is it not a right, it is, in my opinion, unconstitutional to force me into it.

That said, the law is so simple these days that it takes nine justices on the Supreme Court to make a decision, and most of the time they disagree with each other.

[Sigaba]

Our freedoms existed long before anyone took the time to make a list of which ones we want... just like time existed long before anyone invented a watch. "Nature's Law/God" defines the possibility for freedoms, and we define which ones we want. Even if we are bound and shackled, our freedoms still exist just waiting to be taken back...Very nicely put.

[grog18b]

Perhaps some of you misunderstood my post. IMO-- There is a difference between "freedom" and "rights". You can have rights without having freedom.

My post was not referencing the "military" but the Veterans/solders. The PEOPLE that defend our freedom and pay with their service and their blood. Nothing to do with the "Government" per se. Hence the term "Freedom isn't free..." I took two oaths to protect and defend a document against all enimies. I have researched what exactly those oaths meant. Not many people actually bother to do that, nor could they quote their oath. I'm sure people here know it...

As far as where do my "rights" come from... Well, I know they didn't come from God, and they didn't come from a document. They don't come from a Government, and they don't depend on a "military" in order to be possessed.

I suppose you would have to answer the question, "what is freedom?", first. To me, freedom is being free from intrusion into my persuit of happiness, and in my everyday life. Freedom from what, you ask? Freedom from Government intrusion. Same as our Founding Fathers wrote of. Do I have "freedom" now? Nope. As a matter of fact... Hell nope. I live in a heavily restricted and over regulated society. We lost true freedom a very long time ago. There may be an illusion of freedom today, but nothing close to the freedom possessed by Americans shortly after the Constitution was penned.

You see, my friends, at some point in our lives of freedom, politicians decided it was their job to protect us from ourselves, and the laws, rules, and regulations followed, and the taxes to pay for all that regulation, all those code and law enforcement people, judges, lawyers... had to be increased to cover all that. Now I am heavily regulated, heavily taxed, and burdened with a national debt that, lets face it, will never, ever, be paid off.

True freedom, my friends? Hell, we lost that a long time ago. IMO.

[8Ball]

I voted for the natures law thingy. Simply put, I believe we are born with our freedoms and rights. Anyone else (i.e. Governments, etc) sole purpose is to curtail them. Period.

[Titleist]

Perhaps some of you misunderstood my post. IMO-- There is a difference between "freedom" and "rights". You can have rights without having freedom.

My post was not referencing the "military" but the Veterans/solders. The PEOPLE that defend our freedom and pay with their service and their blood. Nothing to do with the "Government" per se. Hence the term "Freedom isn't free..." I took two oaths to protect and defend a document against all enimies. I have researched what exactly those oaths meant. Not many people actually bother to do that, nor could they quote their oath. I'm sure people here know it...

As far as where do my "rights" come from... Well, I know they didn't come from God, and they didn't come from a document. They don't come from a Government, and they don't depend on a "military" in order to be possessed.

I suppose you would have to answer the question, "what is freedom?", first. To me, freedom is being free from intrusion into my persuit of happiness, and in my everyday life. Freedom from what, you ask? Freedom from Government intrusion. Same as our Founding Fathers wrote of. Do I have "freedom" now? Nope. As a matter of fact... Hell nope. I live in a heavily restricted and over regulated society. We lost true freedom a very long time ago. There may be an illusion of freedom today, but nothing close to the freedom possessed by Americans shortly after the Constitution was penned.

You see, my friends, at some point in our lives of freedom, politicians decided it was their job to protect us from ourselves, and the laws, rules, and regulations followed, and the taxes to pay for all that regulation, all those code and law enforcement people, judges, lawyers... had to be increased to cover all that. Now I am heavily regulated, heavily taxed, and burdened with a national debt that, lets face it, will never, ever, be paid off.

True freedom, my friends? Hell, we lost that a long time ago. IMO.

Sounds to me like you've already given up. I believe the populace has been poked in the eye with a sharp stick. I'm a glass half full kind of guy. The folly the American people engaged in the last election, will soon be corrected.

[smp52]

Sounds to me like you've already given up. I believe the populace has been poked in the eye with a sharp stick. I'm a glass half full kind of guy. The folly the American people engaged in the last election, will soon be corrected.

IMO, this cannot be limited to the last election; as others have mentioned it's been a steady erosion, death by a thousand cuts. Even if this administration and its supporters are voted out, I have little doubt intrusions by the government (federal, state, and local) will be rolled back in any meaningful way unless the American people maintain the pressure to do so. Not that people should give up, but just like it took many years for civil liberties to be intruded upon, it may take many years for it to be taken back. EDIT: A hypothetical scenario is presented in this article (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1971133_1971110_1971126,00.html).

The list is long spanning decades of government creep into lives of Americans: The patriot act, this healthcare debacle, second amendment restrictions, etc.

The folly has been that many Americans have been coopted or simply choose to believe that when they give up power to the government for security, health, or economic reasons, that government will truly respect their civil rights when push comes to shove. Just like any large organization, a bureaucracy once created will do everything to survive, even it means trampling on freedoms of those it serves.

[Greenhat]

Sounds to me like you've already given up. I believe the populace has been poked in the eye with a sharp stick. I'm a glass half full kind of guy. The folly the American people engaged in the last election, will soon be corrected.

The trend started long before the last election. Some might say it started when Abraham Lincoln was in office. Some might say it started when George Washington or John Adams was in office. When it started is really immaterial. It is far beyond one election, and the United States has suffered through more than 100 years of our freedoms being eroded and our rights being infringed.

[Amarillo]

{DarkHelmet Sez}Good thread{/DarkHelmet Sez}
And he's spot on.



Moreover, ours is the worst constitutional republican democracy in all of history... except for all the others, up 'til now.

Our gov't didn't give us shit, except for the prevailing wisdom to accept what was ours to begin with: our liberties (read: choices).

We have had some righteous good thinkers to set us on the path. We have fucked their legacy with a voting record and a pretentious urge for litigation/legislation that leads us off that path. (I understand the need to vote from the pocketbook, but sometimes a higher need should prevail.)

It's hard for individuals to make choices that deny themselves a desirable outcome but provide for a greater common good. Hell, that's just mathematics.

How can we get to the place where our liberties are not infringed by our own resolve to make ourselves secure in our lifetime?

[Princeps Belli]

Moreover, ours is the worst constitutional republican democracy in all of history... except for all the others, up 'til now.

That's just wizardry in irony. Love it :biggrin:

We're all trust fund babies, except the ones who care. Then, we probably have the same stoic stare toward the future, as our forefathers.

[Yarg]

One nation under God, but bottom line always thank a Vet. It goes way back to the man in the arena, the Warrior who when he lays down his sword; He is the Veteran we owe thanks to

Y/O

[okie6869]

It doesn't matter if you believe it comes from God, Nature or even a Doorknob as long as you don't believe it comes from the Constitution, Government or any man.

[MikeC2W]

Soldiers are cool people (most of them), in fact most of us here are soldiers, former soldiers, know a few soldiers, at a minimum we generally have the utmost respect for them and don't hesitate in thanking them.

Why is it that we thank soldiers?

Simply put: because we recognize that they defend our freedom.

Defend, not give, but defend. It's for similar reasons that we have the utmost respect for documents such as The Declaration and The Constitution. We recognize that these documents defend our freedom in the form a social contract between the governed and the government.

What's interesting is most of you recognize half of this equation, in that you believe these documents do not give you freedom. Yet some of you believe it is either yourself or a soldier that gives you liberty, and this is wrong. Sure you might defend your liberty, you might decide to a large degree how you exercise your liberty, but it doesn't come from you or anyone in the sense that it was handed to you.

I think the best way to describe it is simply, you were born with it. Even if you were born into bondage, you still have it, it still yours.

[MikeC2W]

The trend started long before the last election. Some might say it started when Abraham Lincoln was in office. Some might say it started when George Washington or John Adams was in office. When it started is really immaterial. It is far beyond one election, and the United States has suffered through more than 100 years of our freedoms being eroded and our rights being infringed.

I'll give GW the benefit of the doubt, but it definitely started with John Adams. :biggrin:

Since the moment the ink was dry, our rights have been eroding. It's the nature of government.

That said, there (and I'm certainly no historian) was a huge shift with Woodrow Wilson that seems to be coming to a head this week. With any luck it will mean the complete destruction of these progressives and their socialist/communist/fascists ways. ;)

Where's B5R and the rest of the socnet statist, what say you?

[Polypro]

The decline? Here's a couple points in time:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

P

[Baildog]

Freedoms definitely erode over time. It is almost inevitable that governments engage in mission creep. Bureaucracies grow and need to justify themselves. Legislatures tend to pass more laws and regulations than they repeal. People who seek positions of power tend to want those positions to have as much power as possible.

[billdawg]

I said nature/God. But, couldv'e gone other as well (as in us) I believe, that He gives us our inate freedoms. We all have the freedom as humans to do what we want. But, it's up to good people to make sure that those freedoms aren't trampled on.

[SOTB]

We all have the freedom as humans to do what we want.Not true. I know this has been the crux of several discussions in this thread, but I find it ludicrous that people believe freedoms are some sort of "guarantee." "HE" gave us freedoms upon birth. "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL." Etc. Not at all true. And really -- when someone points to freedoms being innate -- hahahahha -- all I can reply is that they need to travel a little. Sure, they can come back with "my deity will reward them with freedom in the afterlife" -- but I know that lots of people aren't going to enjoy those freedoms for a long time (at least on THIS planet).But, it's up to good people to make sure that those freedoms aren't trampled on.Not true, dude. Both good AND bad people defend freedoms. And SOME freedoms aren't really conducive to what others might consider as good living.

IE, the freedom to walk into the gal's restroom in a restaurant and rape a woman isn't really a good thing.

WE give us our freedoms -- and WE defend them. The problem is that not all of us choose freedoms that are good for everyone....

[MikeC2W]

Not true. I know this has been the crux of several discussions in this thread, but I find it ludicrous that people believe freedoms are some sort of "guarantee." "HE" gave us freedoms upon birth. "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL." Etc. Not at all true. And really -- when someone points to freedoms being innate -- hahahahha -- all I can reply is that they need to travel a little. Sure, they can come back with "my deity will reward them with freedom in the afterlife" -- but I know that lots of people aren't going to enjoy those freedoms for a long time (at least on THIS planet).Not true, dude. Both good AND bad people defend freedoms. And SOME freedoms aren't really conducive to what others might consider as good living.

IE, the freedom to walk into the gal's restroom in a restaurant and rape a woman isn't really a good thing.

WE give us our freedoms -- and WE defend them. The problem is that not all of us choose freedoms that are good for everyone....

This has nothing to do with the afterlife, unless you'd like it to. I don't see anyone arguing about 'afterlife rewards', I would find it just as ludicrous as you.

This country was founded on the belief that all men are created equal, To quote our declaring document again:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,....

If you don't feel you are born with freedom in your heart, then I feel sad for you. And sad for what it means to this country and our traditions, like KidA says things change, perhaps this is just another example of that and I'm just a dinosaur.

Fair enough, I have traveled far and wide across this planet and I will continue to believe in the self-evidence of inalienable rights, that we are born innately free, you can mock, you can ridicule it's all good. However, I think you'll still missing the point and probably on purpose, I know (perhaps incorrectly) that you are smart enough to understand what is being said here and yet all you offer is, "they need to travel a little"... Ludicrous comes to mind. ;)

The entire foundation of the United States of America is based on inalienable rights and the consent of the governed, and yet.... it is ludicrous? :rolleyes:

[SOTB]

Fair enough, I have traveled far and wide across this planet and I will continue to believe in the self-evidence of inalienable rights, that we are born innately free, you can mock, you can ridicule it's all good....Maybe it is just semantics, but I see a difference between freedoms and rights. I do believe that people are born with innate RIGHTS. I have no illusion that not everyone is FREE, nor should they be.

I'm all about the individual -- my rights end, where yours begin. And vice versa.

I also think that what I believe to be my rights and your rights have little meaning if either of us is free to violate the other's....

[MikeC2W]

Maybe it is just semantics, but I see a difference between freedoms and rights. I do believe that people are born in innate RIGHTS. I have no illusion that not everyone is FREE, nor should they be.

I'm all about the individual -- my rights end, where yours begin. And vice versa.

I also think that what I believe to be my rights and your rights have little meaning if either of us is free to violate the other's....



We agree. We're simply misinterpreting the language.

The question was where does our freedom come from, I would submit that we are born with it - it is one of our inalienable rights (life, liberty... etc).

That however does not mean in the least that you won't find your ass in jail or even better - dead - should you decide to express your freedom by raping a girl in a public bathroom.

[billdawg]

But, that is my point. (and you hit the nail on the head, calling it a semantical issue perhaps). I believe everyone is born , with the right to do whatever they choose. Good, bad, or indifferent, everyone has the freedom to, yes, walk into the womens bathroom, and rape someone. It is up to, decent society(other in the case of the poll,:biggrin:) to make sure society uses their freedoms wisely and that chaos doesn't reign. So, like I voted, God/nature gives us all the freedoms to act however we please, but it is up to us(other), to make sure it runs smoothly. Maybe I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too,lol, but what's the point of baking the cake, if I can't eat it.

[KidA]

If you don't feel you are born with freedom in your heart, then I feel sad for you. And sad for what it means to this country and our traditions, like KidA says things change, perhaps this is just another example of that and I'm just a dinosaur.

I agree we are born free. I agree, however, that not everyone believes that everyone has rights to be free (the selling of people that goes on today). But I also agree, or assert, that this is a belief that has developed over millenia.

Were you born into a slave household in Rome you wouldn't believe you were born free. You'd believe you were born into slavery, the ruling class were born to be rulers. You may have a vague idea of not wanting to be a slave but for the most part it would be your station in life. Heck it wasn't that far past in human history that people believed that royalty were better than they are simply because they came out of a royal pussy that was inseminated by a royal dick. We, of course, realize this to be ludicrous now, but in some countries even today they believe in blood lines and royalty that those people are somehow better than we are.

Of course we have our own version in the US - celebrities :biggrin: At least for the most part being a celebrity's kid doesn't get you that much.

[random]

But, that is my point. (and you hit the nail on the head, calling it a semantical issue perhaps). I believe everyone is born , with the right to do whatever they choose. Good, bad, or indifferent, everyone has the freedom to, yes, walk into the womens bathroom, and rape someone. It is up to, decent society(other in the case of the poll,:biggrin:) to make sure society uses their freedoms wisely and that chaos doesn't reign. So, like I voted, God/nature gives us all the freedoms to act however we please, but it is up to us(other), to make sure it runs smoothly. Maybe I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too,lol, but what's the point of baking the cake, if I can't eat it.

Going by this site, apparently women's bathrooms are dangerous places to be. ;)

But on a serious note, what do you mean by "has the freedom." Do you mean the ability? The right?

[grog18b]

WE give us our freedoms -- and WE defend them. The problem is that not all of us choose freedoms that are good for everyone....

Us... Soldiers... ;) :smile:

Not everyone is "born free" IMO. We are simply born, into whatever circumstances we happen to find ourselves in. Some will seek freedom, some will have it, and some will never have it. Depends on what grid coordinates you find yourself in and who is sitting in the big chair at that location.

IMO--Soldiers fight and pay for freedom. Our freedom. Freedom for others. Without people willing to fight, as soldiers, from the Revolutionary war onward, there would be no Constitution, no Bill of Rights, no Declaration of independence.

You can have all the writings in the world, but none of them are worth the paper they are printed on unless someone is willing to swear to protect and defend them, ruck up, weapon up, and fight for them.

IMO--Freedom doesn't just "exist"... there for the taking (and taking for granted). It's something that requires people of high caliber to fight for and defend. Without those people... would freedom exist here? Hell no. Someone, somewhere, sometime, desires to rule us. Time will tell... After all... The Roman Empire lasted how long? ...and ours? One thing about Governments... None last forever. Neither will this one.

I haven't given up Titlist. I may be retired, but I still do what I can vote wise, and phone and letter wise. I also still have the pitchfork in the barn in case things get really out of hand...:smile:

[MikeC2W]

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You are either endowed with these or you are not (period). It matters not what, when, where or how you were born. It doesn't matter that's you've been a slave for 1000 years.

I'm not sure what you guys don't get. If you don't believe it, that's fine...but I don't see any gray area here.

[8Ball]

You are either endowed with these or you are not (period). It matters not what, when, where or how you were born. It doesn't matter that's you've been a slave for 1000 years.

I'm not sure what you guys don't get. If you don't believe it, that's fine...but I don't see any gray area here.

That's what I was trying to say... Just not that intelligently.

[MikeC2W]

I agree we are born free. I agree, however, that not everyone believes that everyone has rights to be free (the selling of people that goes on today). But I also agree, or assert, that this is a belief that has developed over millenia.

Were you born into a slave household in Rome you wouldn't believe you were born free. You'd believe you were born into slavery, the ruling class were born to be rulers. You may have a vague idea of not wanting to be a slave but for the most part it would be your station in life. Heck it wasn't that far past in human history that people believed that royalty were better than they are simply because they came out of a royal pussy that was inseminated by a royal dick. We, of course, realize this to be ludicrous now, but in some countries even today they believe in blood lines and royalty that those people are somehow better than we are.



And they would, in a fucking heart beat, have us believe it again....!

That 'vague idea', is your inalienable rights trying to tell you to wake the fuck up. They've been trying to dumb us down since the ink was dry.

I just heard the other day, Americans don't care about procedure, they're not going to debate a parliamentary trick... they just want it done.

Bullshit, that little inalienable rights light that is flashing in the corner of your eye... it just went into overdrive, this wasn't part of the contract.

[Baildog]

Well, when you put it that way, I have to say that we are not "endowed" with them. And I think the debate here is primarily between those who see a "god-given" entitlement vice those who see a set of values derived from the social contract that humans develop in order to interact sanely with each other.

In a way it comes back to the difference between Rights and Freedoms. Having a freedom is of tangible benefit, because it means that you have the ability to do something. Rights, however, are intangible. Just because you have the right to liberty does not mean that you will ever experience liberty ... let alone happiness. Having a right in and of itself offers the individual no tanglible benefit, unless others are forced to respect it.

One can talk about how all humans are endowed with an innate right to liberty. What good does that right do for the millions if not billions of people who live or lived their entire lives in servitude or slavery?

I would argue that to those that live their whole lives in slavery, whether they were entitled to a better deal matters a lot less than what deal they actually got. Where rights matter is as an ideal for humanity to strive for; but without someone willing to fight for them, they don't matter at all.

[SOTB]

....I think the debate here is primarily between those who see a "god-given" entitlement vice those who see a set of values derived from the social contract that humans develop in order to interact sanely with each other.

In a way it comes back to the difference between Rights and Freedoms. Having a freedom is of tangible benefit, because it means that you have the ability to do something. Rights, however, are intangible. Just because you have the right to liberty does not mean that you will ever experience liberty ... let alone happiness. Having a right in and of itself offers the individual no tanglible benefit, unless others are forced to respect it.

One can talk about how all humans are endowed with an innate right to liberty. What good does that right do for the millions if not billions of people who live or lived their entire lives in servitude or slavery?

I would argue that to those that live their whole lives in slavery, whether they were entitled to a better deal matters a lot less than what deal they actually got. Where rights matter is as an ideal for humanity to strive for; but without someone willing to fight for them, they don't matter at all.This post is approved by the committee to elect SOTB as deity numero uno....

[grog18b]

You are either endowed with these or you are not (period). It matters not what, when, where or how you were born. It doesn't matter that's you've been a slave for 1000 years.

I'm not sure what you guys don't get. If you don't believe it, that's fine...but I don't see any gray area here.

I'm "endowed" with a big shwanker. (no, really) Rights and freedom, I and my ancestors fought for bro. If you believe "God" somehow gives you freedom from birth, good for you. Not everyone walks the same path. If a human being was born into slavery, lived as a slave, and died as a slave, and generations of his ancestors did the same thing, they have never known "freedom" nor have they been "endowed" by their creator with anything but lives of servitude.

...and to quote the Honorable Monte...

Peasant Woman: Well, how'd you become king, then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis the Peasant: You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur: [grabs Dennis] Shut up! Will you shut up?!
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: [shakes Dennis] Shut up!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!
Arthur: Bloody Peasant!

[grog18b]

I'm just curious what you all think....

Please explain other.

Be careful what you wish for... :biggrin:

[Baildog]

Have we heard from any of the 23 people who voted that freedoms come from the government (i.e, Constitution/Bill of Rights, or the one person who actually voted "The Government")?

[SOTB]

Have we heard from any of the 23 people who voted that freedoms come from the government (i.e, Constitution/Bill of Rights, or the one person who actually voted "The Government")?Dude, its only us non-conformists/anti-authoritarians who are gonna raise a bitch....:biggrin:

[random]

...and to quote the Honorable Monte...

Peasant Woman: Well, how'd you become king, then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis the Peasant: You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur: [grabs Dennis] Shut up! Will you shut up?!
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: [shakes Dennis] Shut up!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!
Arthur: Bloody Peasant!

Well played. :biggrin:

[MikeC2W]

Be careful what you wish for... :biggrin:


HAHA - not at all, this is interesting. I took it for granted that most everyone would believe in the Declaration of Independence.

I do disagree with you last post, completely. Do you think if the South had won the civil war that we would still have slaves today?

I'll post it one more time:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,....

With that statement we said we have these rights and decided to rebel against the most powerful force on the planet.

And yet you guys don't believe in it. Do I find that odd, yes... but not everyone walks the same path.

[Baildog]

Do you think if the South had won the civil war that we would still have slaves today?

Depends, does "we" mean Americans or Confederates? :biggrin:

With that statement we said we have these rights and decided to rebel against the most powerful force on the planet.

And yet you guys don't believe in it. Do I find that odd, yes... but not everyone walks the same path.

I don't find it contradictory. It was couched in certain language reflecting the beliefs of its drafters, which to my mind neither validates nor abrogates the basic premise. Governments derive their just power from the concent of the governed. Any other power is unjust. All humans are deserving of the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I'm good with all that. And willing to do whatever I have to IOT see that I and my family, and the rest of the human race, enjoy the fruits of that.

[SOTB]

Do you think if the South had won the civil war that we would still have slaves today?While not directed at me, I will answer that I think slavery was probably going to go the way of the dodo -- simply because Americans were evolving, and the silly arguments utilized to justify slavery were not winning out. So I think that slavery would have not lasted. Obviously, it is pretty sad that it lasted at all -- but anyway, that would be MY answer.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,....I have no problem with the quote -- sure, I disagree that there is a Creator, but I don't fault those that wrote the document for having that belief.

You mention that you see the semantics issue I stated earlier -- I still think this is causing some of the differences in posts. IMO, you are faulting people because of the semantics. IE, I think you are dinging on people because they recognize that just because you have a RIGHT, doesn't mean you will ever enjoy it. That FREEDOM to enjoy that right comes from US. Not a deity. Not a concept. Not even the masses huddling together and singing pretty songs. It comes from those who are willing to carve out an area in which a FREEDOM will exist. And to the earlier posters -- not all who carve out these FREEDOMS are good people. Simply -- FREEDOMS will exist where people make them exist....

[Princeps Belli]

The state of nature is a state of liberty not license. I am either paraphrasing or quoting what is in my brain from Locke. Though, just because Locke says something, it doesn't mean that it is right.

This thread is really a comment on this particular site. It is of the highest value. One could go to many sites on the internet, but this one has, I think, the greatest balance of common sense and sophisticated rigor. These are deep questions the we are considering, and I am happy to see that they don't fly off into the atmosphere, well except for my own considerations, from time to time.

The rights of government are central. Where do they come from, how do they exist, and what is the appropriate?

I haven't followed this as religiously as I should, but I think that if someone were to take this thread, put it into a book, and amplify it, the book would be a best seller, because it covers a wide range of considerate and differing sentiments throughout our nation today, and our world.

That being stated, SOTB, I understand where you are coming from, but I wonder what you want to communicate with this:

I have no problem with the quote -- sure, I disagree that there is a Creator, but I don't fault those that wrote the document for having that belief.

You did put it in the capital form, so I suspect that you mean a personal Deity, which has interaction with human involvement.

The reason that I ask is because, we do have to know that we were created. That is: there were creators or a Creator. I can understand the sense that you mean by the fact that you don't believe in a Creator, but do you mean creators? I.E. random phenomena, some organizational force of order, or simply nihilism. By nihilism, I mean, do you think that we simply imagine creation out of our own prerogatives, and try to make sense out of a world that essentially exists in chaos?

I ask these questions because I am genuinely curious.

I think that the Declaration is largely a rhetorical piece, and I believe that the Founders held the same opinion. I think that the Constitution and the Declaration are a reversal of the New Testament and the Old Testament. One establishes a state, and works through a law-making procedure. The other emphasizes higher principles, which are pretty difficult to follow, but it is confusing. Did the Declaration create America, or did the Constitution. Both, I think.

I just wanted to know your thoughts because your arguments definitely reflect a good stance, and a difficult one. Therefore, I thought that I should prod you a bit to clarify it. Hopefully, it doesn't come off as disrespectful, not my intention at all. I just wanted to see where you are coming from, and I would certainly respectfully agree or respectfully disagree.

[Baildog]

While you specifically asked SOTB, I will take a stab at this while we wait for him to come along. The words creation and creator (whether upper cased or not) carry an implication of intent. And therefore of sentience. Philosophically, this is known as the teleological argument (or, the watchmaker argument). That any complex system must have a creator, and, incidentally, a purpose. Nihilism also carries implication. Or at least negative connotation, I think. But, yes: to say that I do not believe that there is sentience that designed, created, and gave purpose to Life, the Universe, and Everything is not to say that we cannot give meaning to our own lives; that we cannot infer principals that we choose to call rights.

[Princeps Belli]

Philosophically, this is known as the teleological argument (or, the watchmaker argument).

I am certainly aware of Aristotelian teleology, and I understand, somewhat, the implications. I can see where you are coming from, but do we look at the universe with a sense of abstract mechanism. I don't know. I truly try to look from the lowest level to the highest. What I mean is that I know that I am typing on a computer. I don't know what is going on in A-stan. Therefore, I try to use the same thought framework to look at the cosmos.

I know that I am on terra firma (though mobile to say the least), but I don't know what exists in some supposed Heaven, Hell, Universe, or even continent that I've never been to.

But, yes: to say that I do not believe that there is sentience that designed, created, and gave purpose to Life, the Universe, and Everything is not to say that we cannot give meaning to our own lives; that we cannot infer principals that we choose to call rights.

I can see your argument here. Just a quick technical thing, like logic. I don't think that it makes any difference to the substance of your argument though, which I can understand. Sentience would infer senses. I could agree with you on the basis of the definition, because everything that has senses has sense organs. Sense organs relate to bodies. That is a question that I will leave to better men than I. Does God (or gods) indicate a body, or is God (gods) incorporeal? Well, that's too metaphysical for me, but the implication does have impacts in the questions of principles, right, and justice.

We can give meaning to our lives, but where does it come from? I mean, there is a definite tension between an individual good, and a collective good. Nature, as complex as it is, suggests balance, but what is nature? Politically speaking, it's irrelevant. I speak, because of convention; I drive on the right side of the road, because of convention; I married one woman, because of convention. My military practices were because of convention, but I still think that there is a strange and mysterious pervasiveness in the conventions. They make sense, and they work for the good of humanity, but where do they come?

Not that I'll get a likely answer, but they're interesting to ponder. I mean English is translatable, and the reason to drive on one side of the road or another is understandable. Furthermore, marriage is understandable, despite the fact that all of these are conventions. I won't offer some heebee-geebee, but it is funny to me. Comic rather than tragic is what I say. The irony that animals like apes (funny looking animal to me) can master the whole of the world. Watch out lions, tigers, and bears!!! This hairless ape can put you in your place without hesitation. I think that that gives me a little chuckle.

[Baildog]

Well, I am typing on a computer in A-stan and I'm not sure I know what is going on here. But anyway ...
I believe that as individuals we have compete freedom of will, within the limitations of our minds and bodies and the physical laws of the universe. But those limitations are many. But if we did not also have the conventions that we do that allow us to function as a society, we would not function as a society. That may sound like a tautology, but where we are today is the product of all the decisions and actions that came before; almost with a degree of inevitability. That to me does not ipso facto demand any sort of design or intent, however. It is what it is. I think the make-up of the human psyche generally needs to see design, needs to believe in purpose, needs questions to have knowable answers. But needing it and it being true are different things. We have these conventions, we believe in these fundamenta rights, becuase if we didn't we never would have made the society that we have (such as it is).

[SOTB]

....to say that I do not believe that there is sentience that designed, created, and gave purpose to Life, the Universe, and Everything is not to say that we cannot give meaning to our own lives; that we cannot infer principals that we choose to call rights.Gospel....:biggrin:

[Baildog]

I am your humble disciple :biggrin:

[Princeps Belli]

:biggrin:

[Greenhat]

I think there is a lot of confusion over the last page or so between:

"rights" and "freedoms"

"liberty" and "freedom"

"freedom" is a very broad word with a tremendous variety in what iit means. Freedom from what? Free to do what?

In some senses, freedom cannot ever be taken from us... in some senses, it already is from the day we are born.

I prefer rights and liberty. They are more precise words.

I've recommended them before, I'll recommend them again:

Thomas Paine The Rights of Man
John Locke Treatises on Government

[Princeps Belli]

Well, I'm late night bored, so I thought that I should antagonize the thread a bit. It really is a pleasing one. Hopefully, I don't become a thread ruiner (TR). I wanted to give a shout-out to GH ( I know that it is vulgar language, and it is a bit of parody, with no intended sarcasm).

I do agree with the need to ratchet down the terms, and I think that the picture manifests itself with more clarity, when we do so. I will read those works when I get the chance. I've read excerpts from Locke's two treatises, and I have encountered them fairly, but not exhaustively. Also, they were in some of Rousseau's works.

I have little knowledge of Paine's writings, however, but I'll look into them. He is famous for his eccentric behavior, if I am correct. I know that it seems like nominalism to define terms, but I agree with the importance of ratcheting down the correct definition.

Just to stir up the pot: I think the make-up of the human psyche generally needs to see design, needs to believe in purpose, needs questions to have knowable answers.

I think that it is as you state, but what is your opinion about innateness? Do you think that we are innately aware of design, or do you think that we imaginatively find it? I mean: we do see three fingers, but do you think that we see three fingers, or do you think that there are simply three fingers?

I understand that it may seem pedantic, but I think that it is important to clarify. I mean, the number three is somewhat arbitrary. No animal understands a number, except man (in the generic sense. Women understand it too, but they are like Iraqis; the truth is relative).;) Just joking.

There is, however, a difficulty there. The number three and the actual object that is threefold is questionable. Like it was stated earlier, human beings need to see design, but does it seem that design simply exists, or does someone think that we, as humans, create design by our own natural inclinations, whatever they may be?

I know that I am late night rambling, but I think that it would be interesting to the poll.

[misterlewis]

Our freedoms existed long before anyone took the time to make a list of which ones we want... just like time existed long before anyone invented a watch. "Nature's Law/God" defines the possibility for freedoms, and we define which ones we want. Even if we are bound and shackled, our freedoms still exist just waiting to be taken back...

+1. Couldn't agree more

[MikeC2W]

While not directed at me, I will answer that I think slavery was probably going to go the way of the dodo -- simply because Americans were evolving, and the silly arguments utilized to justify slavery were not winning out. So I think that slavery would have not lasted. Obviously, it is pretty sad that it lasted at all -- but anyway, that would be MY answer.I have no problem with the quote -- sure, I disagree that there is a Creator, but I don't fault those that wrote the document for having that belief.

You mention that you see the semantics issue I stated earlier -- I still think this is causing some of the differences in posts. IMO, you are faulting people because of the semantics. IE, I think you are dinging on people because they recognize that just because you have a RIGHT, doesn't mean you will ever enjoy it. That FREEDOM to enjoy that right comes from US. Not a deity. Not a concept. Not even the masses huddling together and singing pretty songs. It comes from those who are willing to carve out an area in which a FREEDOM will exist. And to the earlier posters -- not all who carve out these FREEDOMS are good people. Simply -- FREEDOMS will exist where people make them exist....

It's not my intention to ding anyone, rereading some of this I think, again, it is somewhat semantics. I think 'freedom' was a poor choice on my part and did lead to some confusing.

I think most of us here though are in agreement.

Let me know if I'm not getting this correct.... (LOL, I just typed 'right' and decided to change it to 'correct') to summarize:

1. Humans have rights, like the right to life and liberty.
2. We come together and form government, a civil society, to protect those rights.

There may be a difference of opinion on how important or immaterial those rights are based on ones current situation - ie you are a slave.

I don't believe at all in the idea that 'a people' because for generations have been slaves will continue to be slaves, because they know no better. I think that thought process is way lacking.

For me, if I were going to talk about rights and freedoms and the importance of government, there would have to be some starting point for consensus and this would be it: Yes, we have these rights, yes we enter into government to protect those rights.

[MikeC2W]

Well, when you put it that way, I have to say that we are not "endowed" with them. And I think the debate here is primarily between those who see a "god-given" entitlement vice those who see a set of values derived from the social contract that humans develop in order to interact sanely with each other.

It's not for or against, in my opinion it is because of these rights that we enter a social contract. In order to see they are protected, and that we interact sanely with each other.

In a way it comes back to the difference between Rights and Freedoms. Having a freedom is of tangible benefit, because it means that you have the ability to do something. Rights, however, are intangible. Just because you have the right to liberty does not mean that you will ever experience liberty ... let alone happiness. Having a right in and of itself offers the individual no tanglible benefit, unless others are forced to respect it.

I wasn't talking about ones experiences with freedom. I was only trying ascertain that these rights exist.

One can talk about how all humans are endowed with an innate right to liberty. What good does that right do for the millions if not billions of people who live or lived their entire lives in servitude or slavery?

Of course I can ;) I'm not at this point concerned with what those innate rights do, only that they exist.

I would argue that to those that live their whole lives in slavery, whether they were entitled to a better deal matters a lot less than what deal they actually got. Where rights matter is as an ideal for humanity to strive for; but without someone willing to fight for them, they don't matter at all.

The deal they got certainly sucks, but I'm saying they have a innate right to liberty, I'm not sure what you are saying.


Not sure if that clears any confusion up. Perhaps I'm too linear, perhaps I missed it, for me they either exist from the beginning or they do not. If they do not then I don't see any real point in debating whether or not they have any value.

[billdawg]

Going by this site, apparently women's bathrooms are dangerous places to be. ;)

But on a serious note, what do you mean by "has the freedom." Do you mean the ability? The right?

Well, wpomen's rest rooms are way dirtier than men's so maybe,lol. I guess what I mean, is that everyone is born with the freedom or maybe ability is a better word, to act however they choose. People have the right ot act like douche bags, etc. But, it is up to decnt society to set laws/rules to keep the irresponsible people in check.

[smoked]

Freedom is my right.

I'm a human. I have the right to my own life. My ENTIRE life. Not just my thoughts, ideas, etc - my WHOLE life. That is the ONLY way I'm truly free or have FREEDOM. Call it inalienable.

If, at any time, I exercise behavior that violates another's right to his own life, I'm fucking wrong because I'm denying another human his right to his own life - in it's entirety. (I know, Capt Obvious)

So, MY freedom is MINE. I have a RIGHT to it. You have yours and I have mine. When they collide, we have problems.

At it's core, freedom is based on the individual - SOTB states this, but uses "WE" - for good reason. This is the only rational way to live amongst each other - respecting the right of others to be free.

[Greenhat]

Freedom is my right.

I'm a human. I have the right to my own life. My ENTIRE life. Not just my thoughts, ideas, etc - my WHOLE life. That is the ONLY way I'm truly free or have FREEDOM. Call it inalienable.

If, at any time, I exercise behavior that violates another's right to his own life, I'm fucking wrong because I'm denying another human his right to his own life - in it's entirety. (I know, Capt Obvious)

So, MY freedom is MINE. I have a RIGHT to it. You have yours and I have mine. When they collide, we have problems.

At it's core, freedom is based on the individual - SOTB states this, but uses "WE" - for good reason. This is the only rational way to live amongst each other - respecting the right of others to be free.

Nicely put. And answers those that bring up slavery... slave owners are violating others' rights.

[MakoZeroSix]

Freedom? You've got to be kidding me. Do you people imagine that you are free?? You can't even walk down the street with a bottle of beer in your hand without risking a severe electric shock from some cop.

Freedom exists only in your mind. You are only as free as you think you are. If you can be convinced that you are free, yet have to follow all kinds gay rules, then what are you? An ignorant slave?

All this lofty talk about freedom being an innate right or whatever reminds me of the intellectual masturbation of college. You only have the freedom you are granted by the organization that controls the piece of land that you stand on or the freedom that you take from that organization.

In reality, there has never been freedom in human history. People always have been servants to others. There have only been degrees that our perception has differed.

[SOTB]

You only have the freedom you are granted by the organization that controls the piece of land that you stand on or the freedom that you take from that organization....Yup....

[8Ball]

Freedom? You've got to be kidding me. Do you people imagine that you are free?? You can't even walk down the street with a bottle of beer in your hand without risking a severe electric shock from some cop.

Freedom exists only in your mind. You are only as free as you think you are. If you can be convinced that you are free, yet have to follow all kinds gay rules, then what are you? An ignorant slave?

All this lofty talk about freedom being an innate right or whatever reminds me of the intellectual masturbation of college. You only have the freedom you are granted by the organization that controls the piece of land that you stand on or the freedom that you take from that organization.

In reality, there has never been freedom in human history. People always have been servants to others. There have only been degrees that our perception has differed.

Shockingly, this makes sense to me and I agree. Even if you are a closet 60's Hippy.:biggrin:
Take it a step further. My Grandad used to say we didn't own our family farm even though it was paid off. You think you own your land? Miss a couple Tax payments and see just how you own it...

[Baildog]

Absolutely right. Legally, land "ownership" means only that you have a set of rights with regard to a parcel of land ... hmm, wonder where those rights come from?

However, the concept and belief in innate rights serves a purpose. It encourages people to coexist in society, and to fight the tendency of governments and the powerful to take everything for themselves. People have a limited amount of freedom (some mroe limited than others), but -- as was alluded to before in the discussion of slavery -- when people accept that they do not have rights, they have given up any shot at freedom.

[MikeC2W]

Freedom? You've got to be kidding me. Do you people imagine that you are free?? You can't even walk down the street with a bottle of beer in your hand without risking a severe electric shock from some cop.

Freedom exists only in your mind. You are only as free as you think you are. If you can be convinced that you are free, yet have to follow all kinds gay rules, then what are you? An ignorant slave?

All this lofty talk about freedom being an innate right or whatever reminds me of the intellectual masturbation of college. You only have the freedom you are granted by the organization that controls the piece of land that you stand on or the freedom that you take from that organization.

In reality, there has never been freedom in human history. People always have been servants to others. There have only been degrees that our perception has differed.

Nothing to see here, just some pragmatic masturbation, nothing more. The anti intellectual cool guy cynic, it's just as bad as the intellectual masturbation of college that you speak of.:smile:

I'm not an intellectual, although I do like to masturbate on occasion. That said, if you prefer to consider yourself in different degrees of servitude, well, bravo! Go get me a beer, bitch. :biggrin::biggrin:

I'm not exactly sure what your point is either, are you saying there are no rights to life or liberty?

This thread is not about how fucked up government or our society is, just a simple question to discern if we have inalienable rights. I understand most everyone's desire to say certain things about freedom, lack thereof, gay rules, etc.. etc... You won't get much of an argument out of me either, but I do believe in these rights. Are you saying this makes me an ignorant slave?

[Princeps Belli]

There's a story about Dionysius I, the tyrant of Syracuse. It is written that Plato was brought to Syracuse to aid in the establishment of a regime there. Dionysius I tolerated him awhile, but he decided that he had had enough of Plato's philosophy, so he put him on a ship to the enemies of Athens (where he supposedly became a slave, until he was rescued).

Dionysius I told him something to the effect that he should try to be free with his philosophy while he was in slavery, a very comical act to my tastes.

Here's another about Dionysius I. He had a flatterer that followed him around, praising the magnificence of his life, wealth, and power. Dionysius I grew tired of this flatterer, so he decided that he would give him the opportunity to experience a life of absolute rule. He prepared a large banquet, filled the table with a large array of relishes, and had the man sit in his seat. Dionysius I, in order to show the difficulties of his position of power, had commanded that a sword be tied above the seat with a horsehair. The flatter asked to be excused from the banquet as soon as possible.

Nepos wrote the first story, and I don't remember who wrote the second. I got a kick out of them both, and I thought that they would do nicely to highlight the themes of the present discussion about a freedom. Does freedom come from power, or does it come from some understanding of right? Well, that's somewhat of the discussion here.

I already stated my answer, but I haven't seen the argument from the one vote for government. Maybe, he/she is lurking and hiding under the guise of natural right/God, Constitution, Bill of Rights, or other. Otherwise, I just missed it.:biggrin:

[MakoZeroSix]

I'm not exactly sure what your point is either, are you saying there are no rights to life or liberty?

This thread is not about how fucked up government or our society is, just a simple question to discern if we have inalienable rights. I understand most everyone's desire to say certain things about freedom, lack thereof, gay rules, etc.. etc... You won't get much of an argument out of me either, but I do believe in these rights. Are you saying this makes me an ignorant slave?

My point is there are no rights, period. There just is what is. "rights" are a man-made concept, not something like 2+2=4.

There is no reality, only the perception thereof. We invent this fantasy that we call "freedom" and pat ourselves on the back for it. And then blindly serve our masters while watching plasma TV. And that's fine with me, as long as you don't make me uncomfortable.

I am a slave, like the rest of you. But my eyes are wide open. I just don't get all mad about it and shit. I look at the rest of human history and accept it as par for the course. Fuck it.

[smoked]

....And that's fine with me, as long as you don't make me uncomfortable.


Why? You got the right to be comfortable or something? :smile:

[stanpunjabTrini]

Freedom? You've got to be kidding me. Do you people imagine that you are free?? You can't even walk down the street with a bottle of beer in your hand without risking a severe electric shock from some cop.

Freedom exists only in your mind. You are only as free as you think you are. If you can be convinced that you are free, yet have to follow all kinds gay rules, then what are you? An ignorant slave?

All this lofty talk about freedom being an innate right or whatever reminds me of the intellectual masturbation of college. You only have the freedom you are granted by the organization that controls the piece of land that you stand on or the freedom that you take from that organization.

In reality, there has never been freedom in human history. People always have been servants to others. There have only been degrees that our perception has differed.

ar men!

the founding fathers only meant for a certain group of people to be free and that relied on priviledge.
The rest, we could say, can go to hell because the historical record is that he who has guns and power can influence shit.

There's good and ther's bad. Using freedom as an absolute, he who is free (MUST) have a gun and therfore the freedom to take land from those who have, and enslave those who fall for the "freedom" crap. Our politicians have freedom to pretend to represent us, the people, while keeping their professional status as a way to get rich from our usage of them to (pretend) to represent us while getting the best of the freedom(s) we have given them. We may be free(er) than the rest of the world but we are so bogged down in socialist orwellian cr*p while thinking US is the freest nation in the world.

I love relative freedom!

[Baildog]

We invent this fantasy that we call "freedom" and pat ourselves on the back for it. And then blindly serve our masters while watching plasma TV.

I am a slave, like the rest of you.

True. But there are degrees of slavery; degrees of freedom. As I tell my kids all the time, as middle class Americans we live better than 99.9% of the people that ever lived (yes, I'm well aware your friends have bigger houses and more Xbox games!); and that is because people fought to get us where we are. And one of the reasons they fought is because they felt entitled to their "rights." The natural state of things is might makes right, and the strong will dominate the weak. But enforcing upon the strong and governments the idea that they must respect rights, even when not compelled by force, helps us enjoy the relative degree of freedom we do have. Regardless of where the idea of rights originated.

[MikeC2W]

My point is there are no rights, period. There just is what is. "rights" are a man-made concept, not something like 2+2=4.

There is no reality, only the perception thereof. We invent this fantasy that we call "freedom" and pat ourselves on the back for it. And then blindly serve our masters while watching plasma TV. And that's fine with me, as long as you don't make me uncomfortable.

I am a slave, like the rest of you. But my eyes are wide open. I just don't get all mad about it and shit. I look at the rest of human history and accept it as par for the course. Fuck it.


'There just is what is'

What is = we're all slaves.

Freedom is a fantasy.

So your base reality is one of slavery, LOL only in America :rolleyes:

Respectfully - that's just utterly ridiculous. I guess I'm just a glass half full kind of guy.

[SOTB]

So your base reality is one of slavery, LOL only in America....Mako is probably pissed at a recent hockey game's coverage getting canked in lieu of 24/7 video of Congress passing a vote to allow them to vote on the HCR bill.:biggrin: So ignore him, he'll be along soon enough with a post about surfing when the cold front hits NC tomorrow.

But he really is right -- IMO -- regarding the fallacy that is "rights" and "freedoms." They only exist because we decided they do. The day we no longer care about them, they will cease to exist. It doesn't matter if you believe your creator bestowed them upon you at birth, conception, or while you were still a twinkle in his heavenly eye -- if you can't practice them, if you don't know about them, or if you don't care about them -- the end result is still the same -- you ain't using them.

So his anarchist roaring against the system aside -- he's right....

[MikeC2W]

We're approaching ludicrous speed.


There's certainly no guarantee, and most Americans seem pretty keen on trading them in for security (another fantasy) and healthcare and whatever fucking else Uncle Sam is handing out.

[cb88]

'There just is what is'

What is = we're all slaves.

Freedom is a fantasy.

So your base reality is one of slavery, LOL only in America :rolleyes:

Respectfully - that's just utterly ridiculous. I guess I'm just a glass half full kind of guy.


It's hard to be free when you are "owned" -- when you are "bought" by entitlements (welfare, medicaid, and now health care), you are owned and you have no freedoms.

[SOTB]

We're approaching ludicrous speed.HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA You know how I know you're GAY?:biggrin:

[MikeC2W]

It's hard to be free when you are "owned" -- when you are "bought" by entitlements (welfare, medicaid, and now health care), you are owned and you have no freedoms.


Yes indeed, it appears that it is going to get a bit more difficult in the coming years. They do seem intent on growing government and reducing choice.

[cb88]

Yes indeed, it appears that it is going to get a bit more difficult in the coming years. They do seem intent on growing government and reducing choice.

Yup.

I'm turning on the Disney Channel for the night so I don't shoot my TV. :tongue:

[Greenhat]

You only have the freedom you are granted by the organization that controls the piece of land that you stand on or the freedom that you take from that organization.


As hard as it is to understand, there are still pieces of land on this earth that aren't actually controlled by anybody. Officially claimed? Sure. Controlled. That's something else.

Want freedom as you seem to understand it? Find one of those pieces and make it yours. I'm sure you won't be the first.

[Greenhat]

You only have the freedom you are granted by the organization that controls the piece of land that you stand on or the freedom that you take from that organization.


As hard as it is to understand, there are still pieces of land on this earth that aren't actually controlled by anybody. Officially claimed? Sure. Controlled. That's something else.

Want freedom as you seem to understand it? Find one of those pieces and make it yours. I'm sure you won't be the first.

[Greenhat]

triple tap. Damn wifi

[Greenhat]

Quadruple tap. Damn wifi...

[MikeC2W]

My point is there are no rights, period. There just is what is. "rights" are a man-made concept, not something like 2+2=4.

There is no reality, only the perception thereof. We invent this fantasy that we call "freedom" and pat ourselves on the back for it. And then blindly serve our masters while watching plasma TV. And that's fine with me, as long as you don't make me uncomfortable.

I am a slave, like the rest of you. But my eyes are wide open. I just don't get all mad about it and shit. I look at the rest of human history and accept it as par for the course. Fuck it.



Workers of the world unite! Sounds like we need some emancipation !

:biggrin:

[MakoZeroSix]

True. But there are degrees of slavery; degrees of freedom. As I tell my kids all the time, as middle class Americans we live better than 99.9% of the people that ever lived (yes, I'm well aware your friends have bigger houses and more Xbox games!); and that is because people fought to get us where we are. And one of the reasons they fought is because they felt entitled to their "rights." The natural state of things is might makes right, and the strong will dominate the weak. But enforcing upon the strong and governments the idea that they must respect rights, even when not compelled by force, helps us enjoy the relative degree of freedom we do have. Regardless of where the idea of rights originated.

This is pretty much my point. We have a great standard of living, better by many magnitudes than any in human history. That is worth fighting for. But I'm not going to lie to myself and think that I am free, or that I have any "rights" that are not dictated to me by the government.

Fact of the matter is, I can't so much as buy a bag of popcorn without the government getting a piece of the action, much like a mobster. If I tell the cunt of a flight attendant to go fuck herself when she tells me to do something outrageous, I face 20 years locked in a cage. You have to carry a card with your name and picture and your own personal number on it everywhere you go, or you get shocked or hit in the head with a stick by a guy in a blue uniform.

The government had made a cottage industry of stealing your wealth and locking citizens in cages for all manner of "offenses". What we have is order, not freedom. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but let's call a spade a spade. Somehow this ridiculous way of administering a society seems to be working out pretty well for most people here. I don't know how long it will last, but that's another issue.

I guess that is what irritates me: how we lie to ourselves. Like when Christians go on and on about the "Ten Commandments", yet a clear violation of one of the top five, engraven images, are hanging all over the church. Or when we swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, yet our own government blatantly ignores several of its Amendments, most notably the 10th.

I'd rather it just be ripped up and another one written that to drag on the fiction for decade after decade that we still want to follow the thing.

[MikeC2W]

This is pretty much my point. We have a great standard of living, better by many magnitudes than any in human history. That is worth fighting for. But I'm not going to lie to myself and think that I am free, or that I have any "rights" that are not dictated to me by the government.

Fact of the matter is, I can't so much as buy a bag of popcorn without the government getting a piece of the action, much like a mobster. If I tell the cunt of a flight attendant to go fuck herself when she tells me to do something outrageous, I face 20 years locked in a cage. You have to carry a card with your name and picture and your own personal number on it everywhere you go, or you get shocked or hit in the head with a stick by a guy in a blue uniform.

The government had made a cottage industry of stealing your wealth and locking citizens in cages for all manner of "offenses". What we have is order, not freedom. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but let's call a spade a spade. Somehow this ridiculous way of administering a society seems to be working out pretty well for most people here. I don't know how long it will last, but that's another issue.

I guess that is what irritates me: how we lie to ourselves. Like when Christians go on and on about the "Ten Commandments", yet a clear violation of one of the top five, engraven images, are hanging all over the church. Or when we swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, yet our own government blatantly ignores several of its Amendments, most notably the 10th.

I'd rather it just be ripped up and another one written that to drag on the fiction for decade after decade that we still want to follow the thing.

I'm tired of this thread, feel free to consider yourself enslaved.

[Blackjack7]

Other

I'm not sure if I'll explain this correctly;

I don't believe anyone gives you rights. This implies that these rights can be taken away by whomever gave them to us.

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they referenced "certain inalienable right" which to me means they already existed.

Lastly, I think it takes people like us to protect these rights a keep unscrupulous people from trying to erode them either by legislative trickery or by force. Either way our rights must be protected or they'll be gone.

[Princeps Belli]

I'm tired of this thread, feel free to consider yourself enslaved.

Thank you for putting this one forward. I liked it, and it contained a great treasure of ideas. I hope that it continues, because there is a lot of information here. It would be a great FNG thread.

[MikeC2W]

LOL almost forgot about this one.

I'll just reiterate now that it's back, you're all fucking wrong and I am right. If everyone here is too stupid....er... I mean pragmatic.... to understand it's in their nature to be free then perhaps they deserve to be slaves. :cool::smile:

THAT and - you get the government you vote for, we'll all be slaves soon.

[MikeC2W]

I had no idea that we would get such a differing of opinion, I'm amazed and a little shocked.

I think some of the line is simply drawn (and I'm talking poll results - no single post here) along atheist, non-atheist lines.

Believe what you will, but know this: America is founded on the ideas of natural law. If you believe in our founding documents then you believe in the philosophy that your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable and that they come from no man or no government, but from natural law or God - whichever suits you.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


Anything else would simply be - tyranny. No man, no king, no fucking anything can take away my natural rights - period.

Apparently it's not so self-evident these days. They've been trying to fool us into believing otherwise for a long long time.


In my best Austin Powers voiceover - allow myself....to quote...my... Myself.

Believe what you will, but know this: America is founded on the ideas of natural law. If you believe in our founding documents then you believe in the philosophy that your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable and that they come from no man or no government, but from natural law or God - whichever suits you.

[SOTB]

Believe what you will, but know this: America is founded on the ideas of natural law. If you believe in our founding documents then you believe in the philosophy that your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable and that they come from no man or no government, but from natural law or God - whichever suits you.Our recognition of even the existence of rights is due to how we've evolved. Remember the word "evolved" because there will be a pop quiz later.

10k years from now, our perception of even the word inalienable may be drastically different from what we think of it today. You have an inalienable and natural right to pursue happiness? OK, so in a world where emotions are scorned (there is a movie about this, poorly done, though) how would you even know you weren't free to be happy if you considered the injection of drugs to inhibit emotion to be the key to your survival? Soooooooo, if you've evolved to the idea/point of naturally inhibiting/preventing your emotions and never even once experienced the joy of laughing your ass off until you were lying on the floor combat ineffective, why (or how) would you define your state? Oppressed? Denied your right to happiness? LOL, your (my) rights AND freedoms depend upon what we think they are. And certainly upon our willingness to defend/enforce them.

It is the whole tree falling in the forest thing, sound or not, blah blah blah....

[MikeC2W]

Our recognition of even the existence of rights is due to how we've evolved. Remember the word "evolved" because there will be a pop quiz later.

10k years from now, our perception of even the word inalienable may be drastically different from what we think of it today. You have an inalienable and natural right to pursue happiness? OK, so in a world where emotions are scorned (there is a movie about this, poorly done, though) how would you even know you weren't free to be happy if you considered the injection of drugs to inhibit emotion to be the key to your survival? Soooooooo, if you've evolved to the idea/point of naturally inhibiting/preventing your emotions and never even once experienced the joy of laughing your ass off until you were lying on the floor combat ineffective, why (or how) would you define your state? Oppressed? Denied your right to happiness? LOL, your (my) rights AND freedoms depend upon what we think they are. And certainly upon our willingness to defend/enforce them.

It is the whole tree falling in the forest thing, sound or not, blah blah blah....


LOL, and if worms carried 45's birds wouldn't fuck with them.

You can try to work around it anyway you like, but these truths are self-evident...well at least to most :)

It's a blanket statement and it's universal to man and to animals - life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

There are many 'states' that one can be in, slavery, war, whatever...and many people are in differing states of 'freedom' based on others including governments (and yes the US Gov't) who may be oppressing me in one form or another, that said these are still unalienable rights. Also, as we come together and form a civil society and institute forms of governments obviously we are agreeing to suppress ourselves to whatever extent our accepted moral values and laws define, in order to build said civil society.

I don't know how anyone can argue that it's not in my nature to be free.... ?

[SOTB]

LOL, and if worms carried 45's birds wouldn't fuck with them.You manage to both prove and dismiss my thinking in the same sentence -- quite an accomplishment.:biggrin:I don't know how anyone can argue that it's not in my nature to be free.... ?Because your nature today may not be the same as your nature 10k years from now. That you don't accept that even the concept of "human rights" has pretty much only existed within our recent past, either shows you haven't given this much thought or you don't want serious answers.

I agree with you that TODAY we have in our nature the desire to be "free" (although even that word hasn't been correctly defined OR acknowledged in this thread), but you cannot state that in a thousand years we won't have a completely different POV towards the concept. And that this different POV will be just as natural as what you and I might feel towards the topic today.

And as commented previously, which I don't believe you are arguing, whatever yours and my interpretations of rights are, they are still bound by what freedoms we have -- which might be none, little, or a lot....

[sinjefe]

John Locke had a great influence on our founders and expressed "Natural Law" in less divine terms. He believed that it was the natural state of man to be free from any other power(s). Taking it further, William Blackstone tied this theory to a "Diety" and Alexander Hamilton directly to God. Both Blackstone and Hamilton argued that when human enacted laws came in conflict with natural laws, the human ones were null and void. Judge Andrew Napolitano, in "Lies the Government Told You" and Constitutional Chaos" discusses two opposing legal points of view, the Natural Law and Positive Law, the second being laws instituted by man. There are people (look at the poll) who believe that rights stem from laws (i.e.-men dictating what is a right and what is not) not certain rights being "inalienable".

I, personally, subscribe to Locke's version of Natural Law. If rights come from governments, or men, then there would have been nothing wrong with the holocaust or any other form of genocide or despotism.

[SOTB]

If rights come from governments, or men, then there would have been nothing wrong with the holocaust or any other form of genocide or despotism.And yet we see genocide or despotism still in existence. Only recently has either been considered such a horrible idea (and not everyone agrees).

Rights ARE inalienable -- I agree. I just think the definition of what we consider a right, and what will be inalienable in the future, is going to change -- as it has in the past.

And that evolution is because WE (people) are defining things. Deities or the universe have nothing to do with it (other than our fantastical associations of their involvement)....

[colmurph]

Most of you guys must have flunked civics in school. Our freedoms come from the Constitution and Bill of Rights. No where else! Under anything else you wouldn't have any rights. Religion? Only if you happen to be in the majority, if not, without the Bill of Rights you would be a product of ethnic and or religious cleansing. The Government? What a laugh. If the current crop of politicians had their way you wouldn't have any rights other than to pay your taxes and STFU. Nature/God? Don't think so, neither has given us anything in the past except problems.

[Carl Spackler]

Freedoms are from other humans agreeing with or without deliberation what the group can and cannot have.

[Spinner]

According to the Constitution though, our rights are part and parcel of truths that were declared to be self evident.

If that's the case, the Consititution is only a reminder, not an authorization or granting of these rights.

[KidA]

According to the Constitution though, our rights are part and parcel of truths that were declared to be self evident.

If that's the case, the Consititution is only a reminder, not an authorization or granting of these rights.

But they weren't self-evident before, they only "became" self-evident, which means they aren't self-evident at all, but a concept people agreed upon at one point in time.

[sinjefe]

Most of you guys must have flunked civics in school. Our freedoms come from the Constitution and Bill of Rights. No where else! Under anything else you wouldn't have any rights. Religion? Only if you happen to be in the majority, if not, without the Bill of Rights you would be a product of ethnic and or religious cleansing. The Government? What a laugh. If the current crop of politicians had their way you wouldn't have any rights other than to pay your taxes and STFU. Nature/God? Don't think so, neither has given us anything in the past except problems.

This statement infers that those rights (freedom to assemble, speech, press, arms, etc) did not nor would not exist in the absence of the constitution/bill of rights. In this, you are wrong and it is what Jefferson meant when he talked about inalienable rights. Those rights, the right to self determination free of government or man made intrusion is a right that one is born with not conferred upon by a document.

[MikeC2W]

This statement infers that those rights (freedom to assemble, speech, press, arms, etc) did not nor would not exist in the absence of the constitution/bill of rights. In this, you are wrong and it is what Jefferson meant when he talked about inalienable rights. Those rights, the right to self determination free of government or man made intrusion is a right that one is born with not conferred upon by a document.




BINGO

You guys need to read more, Locke would be a good starting point. :)

[Spinner]

But they weren't self-evident before, they only "became" self-evident, which means they aren't self-evident at all, but a concept people agreed upon at one point in time.

If something is self evident, nothing in the Constitution made it so. It merely gave voice to that fact. If it was self evident after the Constitution was written, so it was prior to that.

Just as a right can't be granted or taken away. At least in theory. ;)

[SOTB]

But they weren't self-evident before, they only "became" self-evident, which means they aren't self-evident at all, but a concept people agreed upon at one point in time.Arguing this is the same as arguing what would happen to souls not previously exposed to the path towards whatever heaven/afterlife pertaining to the arguers' religion.

The fact that it is now known somehow makes it retroactive to the beginning of time, it gets tossed in with physical science -- even though we realized what gravity was on X date, it existed far prior to that date -- same for rights, apparently....

[sinjefe]

But they weren't self-evident before, they only "became" self-evident, which means they aren't self-evident at all, but a concept people agreed upon at one point in time.

As much as I disagree with the concept, you have summarrized, in one sentence, the argument that those who believe in positive law express. So, then, you don't believe that the freedom to speak your mind or freely assemble or worship who or what you will or the freedom from being searched at the whims of the government and with no reason only exist because we say they do? So, if we, collectively, decide that it is okay to search and seize under any circumstance or preclude free assembly or forbid the worship of a specific deity, as long as we do it in accordance with our existing laws, then that is okay? That is the argument that you make.

[ET1/ss nuke]

As much as I disagree with the concept, you have summarrized, in one sentence, the argument that those who believe in positive law express. So, then, you don't believe that the freedom to speak your mind or freely assemble or worship who or what you will or the freedom from being searched at the whims of the government and with no reason only exist because we say they do? So, if we, collectively, decide that it is okay to search and seize under any circumstance or preclude free assembly or forbid the worship of a specific deity, as long as we do it in accordance with our existing laws, then that is okay? That is the argument that you make.

My head hurts.

[MikeC2W]

Arguing this is the same as arguing what would happen to souls not previously exposed to the path towards whatever heaven/afterlife pertaining to the arguers' religion.

The fact that it is now known somehow makes it retroactive to the beginning of time, it gets tossed in with physical science -- even though we realized what gravity was on X date, it existed far prior to that date -- same for rights, apparently....

Exactly gravity existed long before Isaac Newton got hit on the head by that apple.

SOTB - As far as evolution goes, and making some contrary argument 1 million years out based on how we might evolve. well.. I might as well argue for a belief in Santa Claus. :biggrin:

Personally I don't see it, what living thing doesn't desire life or liberty? Granted, with 10 thousand years or a million years of evolution I guess we could all end up with unalienable rights to death, slavery, and the pursuit of misery.

Either way, I find the argument equal to arguing for the belief in ghost.

Worms could very well evolve the opposable thumbs and index fingers required to hold and shoot a 45..... yeah... birds are fucked.:biggrin:

[SOTB]

Worms could very well evolve the opposable thumbs and index fingers required to hold and shoot a 45..... yeah... birds are fucked....Fishermen would be in trouble too.

What I don't understand, well one of the many things I don't understand in life, is how you don't see that rights are neither permanent or all-encompassing.

There was a time, in not too distant of our past, where royalty believed that their right to rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings) was given by God, and that was it. No arguments were allowed. And the killer is, the royalty weren't the only ones to believe that nonsense. But while it was the commonly-accepted idea, yeah -- it was a RIGHT.

But what about now? Anyone here think Prince Charles has a divine right to rule England? I wonder if Prince Charles would want to be saddled right now with that right.

The thing is, just as our freedoms are dependent upon what WE do to guarantee them, so are our rights dependent upon not only whether we enforce them, but whether we even think they exist.

sinjefe asks if certain practices would be "okay" under the concept that people pretty much decide what rights are. Umm, it doesn't matter whether it is "okay", but whether it is the practice. Some people on this planet believe it is their right to exact vengeance upon someone who has harmed them. Some people believe it is their right to drive a car. Some people believe that they have a right to stake a claim on the moon. Others think that if they want to practice Pastafarianism, it is their right. It matters not what the individual believes, but what those around him are going to permit. And that is something that is constantly changing....

[Husker19D30]

No such thing as inalienable rights. I thought Heinlein put it pretty well in Starship Troopers.

Freedoms are ours for the taking and defending, but freedom from what?

[KidA]

Fishermen would be in trouble too.

What I don't understand, well one of the many things I don't understand in life, is how you don't see that rights are neither permanent or all-encompassing.

There was a time, in not too distant of our past, where royalty believed that their right to rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings) was given by God, and that was it. No arguments were allowed. And the killer is, the royalty weren't the only ones to believe that nonsense. But while it was the commonly-accepted idea, yeah -- it was a RIGHT.

But what about now? Anyone here think Prince Charles has a divine right to rule England? I wonder if Prince Charles would want to be saddled right now with that right.

The thing is, just as our freedoms are dependent upon what WE do to guarantee them, so are our rights dependent upon not only whether we enforce them, but whether we even think they exist.

sinjefe asks if certain practices would be "okay" under the concept that people pretty much decide what rights are. Umm, it doesn't matter whether it is "okay", but whether it is the practice. Some people on this planet believe it is their right to exact vengeance upon someone who has harmed them. Some people believe it is their right to drive a car. Some people believe that they have a right to stake a claim on the moon. Others think that if they want to practice Pastafarianism, it is their right. It matters not what the individual believes, but what those around him are going to permit. And that is something that is constantly changing....

I think we're pretty much on the same page here and I was going to use the King anecdote you did, but I was busy at work ;). At one point people truly belived in the "your station in life" You ruled or you were a subject. Stating, even to other subjects, even to other subjects whose sole job it was to muck feces out of buckets with their hands, that you had a "right" to be Free and the King had no "right" to rule over you would have gotten you killed.

Not only that, but when you look at the Magna Carta people actively fought wars against that thinking, not only the King, but subjects too - the idea that God didn't divinely choose a King and therefore divinely choose subjects who could never hope to be anything but a subject and ruled over, was a concept worth killing other people for.

Our thinking, thankfully, evolved beyond that.

[jtk317]

IMO this debate suffers somewhat from the macro v. micro viewpoint (macro being a population and micro being an individual). It's easy to say everyone has natural rights. It's just as easy to say that a nation's individuals were given rights when documentation and theory of government gave them to the group as a whole.

Personally I'm on the side of natural rights. Whether they are inalienable or not is another question. Hasn't a murderer taken away another's right to live? Can an abused child still exert their right to be happy? Did slaves maintain their right to liberty?

Life, liberty and happiness are the rights of any individual who is willing to maintain them by the means available to them.

[KidA]

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are also severely restricted, even though they are "rights" You can't do anything you like, you don't have the right to life if our society defines somethng you do as worthy of having your life taken by the State, if Nudism makes you happy, you can't go nude anywhere you like, neither can you freely purchase drugs that make you happy - in fact you can't even grow a naturally occurring peyote or maijuana plant because the law says you cant - all of it is restricted based on how society operates at the time.

Later some may be less restricted: say for example marijuana is legalized, does that mean everyone who pursued weed to make them happy had the right all along, or was that right granted to them by the law?

[MikeC2W]

What's funny is I didn't think this thread would spur so many different opinions, I honestly thought that we all kind of agreed upon the premise of the Declaration of Independence.

Oh well, I've been wrong before, I'm sure it will happen again.

[jtk317]

So which rights are allowed and which laws are enforced to regulate or deny rights is a function of societal pressures.(This seems to be your assertion and is logical. It's basically how I view it as well.) If this is the case, then legality is a way of providing a framework for how one's rights are expressed, not the basis by which those rights are created.

ETA: Admittedly with the number of Amendments and laws passed concerning the expression of the "inalienable" rights it is obvious that some legal areas have become harmfully restrictive and don't seem to coincide with the original intent of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I fully agree with that.

[sinjefe]

sinjefe asks if certain practices would be "okay" under the concept that people pretty much decide what rights are. Umm, it doesn't matter whether it is "okay", but whether it is the practice. Some people on this planet believe it is their right to exact vengeance upon someone who has harmed them. Some people believe it is their right to drive a car. Some people believe that they have a right to stake a claim on the moon. Others think that if they want to practice Pastafarianism, it is their right. It matters not what the individual believes, but what those around him are going to permit. And that is something that is constantly changing....

The term "right(s)" is an over-used term. Remember that for something to be a right means that it is a "must". The right to drive would mean corresponding force used to obligate someone to manufacture it even if it meant enslavement.

[HighDragLowSpeed]

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are also severely restricted, even though they are "rights" You can't do anything you like

Oddly, for all of our freedoms, the USA is far less "free" within the context that you describe than many places.

[SOTB]

The term "right(s)" is an over-used term.I agree.Remember that for something to be a right means that it is a "must". The right to drive would mean corresponding force used to obligate someone to manufacture it even if it meant enslavement.According to YOUR definition. The thing is, even if your definition is the widly-accepted one today, tomorrow it may not be.

You may dismiss someone's use of the word right when referring to driving, but there are a number of people who simply disagree. Get enough people that disagree, and they win, you lose.

The whole premise that something must be just (or "okay") in order to be a right is simply not backed up by evidence. Whatever we think we have achieved in the past century or decade can be washed aside tomorrow morning if enough of society agrees. "Okay" has not a thing to do with it. "Must" doesn't have a thing to do with it. The Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights have nothing to do with it.

If anyone is around in 1k years, I wonder what they will think of our barbarian mindset of rights....

[sinjefe]

I agree.According to YOUR definition. The thing is, even if your definition is the widly-accepted one today, tomorrow it may not be.

You may dismiss someone's use of the word right when referring to driving, but there are a number of people who simply disagree. Get enough people that disagree, and they win, you lose.

The whole premise that something must be just (or "okay") in order to be a right is simply not backed up by evidence. Whatever we think we have achieved in the past century or decade can be washed aside tomorrow morning if enough of society agrees. "Okay" has not a thing to do with it. "Must" doesn't have a thing to do with it. The Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights have nothing to do with it.

If anyone is around in 1k years, I wonder what they will think of our barbarian mindset of rights....

I think you may be missing my point. Disagreeing with the definition of a word doesn't make the person disagreeing with it any more correct. Words do have specific meanings no matter what people think or feel about it. Each "right", unless abstract (pursuit of happiness), that an individual possesses corresponds to a some "duty" imposed on another. That is simple fact, thus the analogy in reference to driving. So, in layman's terms, a right is something that one is due, regardless of its effect on another person.

[aceJDAM]

I think you may be missing my point. Disagreeing with the definition of a word doesn't make the person disagreeing with it any more correct. Words do have specific meanings no matter what people think or feel about it. Each "right", unless abstract (pursuit of happiness), that an individual possesses corresponds to a some "duty" imposed on another. That is simple fact, thus the analogy in reference to driving. So, in layman's terms, a right is something that one is due, regardless of its effect on another person.

I think that the effect on another person is the distinction. Aggression towards an individual (whether from government, a group of people, or another individual) breeds more aggression and undermines the that individual's rights. Therefore, the natural rights are life, liberty, and property. Each individual is free to do with those three broad and well-encompassing things as long as that person doesn't harm another's right to the same. And if one squanders one's own life, liberty, or property, that person must live with the consequences of one's own actions without forcing aid from others.

[sinjefe]

I think that the effect on another person is the distinction. Aggression towards an individual (whether from government, a group of people, or another individual) breeds more aggression and undermines the that individual's rights. Therefore, the natural rights are life, liberty, and property. Each individual is free to do with those three broad and well-encompassing things as long as that person doesn't harm another's right to the same. And if one squanders one's own life, liberty, or property, that person must live with the consequences of one's own actions without forcing aid from others.

You made my point for me. A right is not a right if it inteferes with another persons self determination. Best contemporary example is the "right" to healthcare. if healthcare is a "right", then it obligates (forces) someone to be a doctor, nurse, etc. What if no one wanted to be a doctor? If healthcare were a "right", then someone would be compelled (by the government) to become a doctor whether they wanted to or not.

[CCo275]

Other.

As in you and I. WE give us our freedoms -- and WE defend them....

Ditto.

[MikeC2W]

I would like to know for those of you who disagree with the idea of inalienable rights, what you think about the Declaration of Independence.

Jefferson was just a nut?